Slashdot Mirror
Public Survey For NASA's Planetary Research Priorities
StephenMesser writes: "At the request of NASA, the National Research Council is conducting a planetary science community assessment of the priorities for the U.S. planetary research programs for the next 10 years. The Planetary Society has been asked to assist this "decadal survey" by seeking input from the general public about planetary exploration. Data must be input by January 31, 2002 to be counted on the survey.
CNN has a story
on the survey."
We all filled in the survey last week
Not just planets, but some moons too.
Do you like German cars?
My vote is that we spend more time researching, and eventually travelling to the Jovan moons. The different moons all have different properties, such as minerals or interesting conditions, that might make them useful to humanity. Europa in particular might either contain its own sea-life or be a possible sanctuary for terran sea-life.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Let the private sector do the work. Fund cheaper engine technology! On to Mars!
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
This has helped me dearly. Now I am able to study more on astronomy.
I vote we send James Bond to the moon with a beautiful super model and prevent Dr. No and his international terrorist spy henchmen from conducting covert operations aimed at destroying the world!
Is any body with me???
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
1) Roughly speaking, where is space?
2) Is space (a) like a big hole or (b) more like a big black curtain with holes poked in it?
3) Aliens come from (a) space or (b) Mexico?
4) When was the moon landing faked? (a) 1962 (b) 1975 (c) 1992
5) What film do you think portrays space most accurately? (a) ET (b) Star Wars (c) Bring It On.
6) When we meet aliens from space, how should they be killed? [provide brief description]
Thank you for your time. You may never have to think about space again.
We owe those guys one.
--Blair
But I think if we look more closely right under our noses at the moon, we'll see that big black monolith. Listen to what it says though and stay away from Europa.
The future isn't what it used to be.
The survey is inherently flawed. It asks you to choose among a list of missions, but its still NASA's list.
When you have to choose between a rock and a hard place, I'd rather have a third choice.
Not that I mind getting a little input, but aren't the guys at Nasa better suited to be making this kind of decision or is this all about PR?
In other words, if you ask a question like that to the public you'll get 25% say Mission to Mars, 25% say base on the Moon, 25% say explore other Solar systems, and 25% vote for Britney Spears. Most normal people don't understand how difficult or how beneficial the missions they would suggest would actually be. It's like asking the guy that bags your groceries for help with Differential Equations.
at the bottom of the screen...IT'S FUCKING MONDAY!
"I'm having a MID-WEEK CRISIS! " --wtf?
Send Jon Katz to Mars!
They could actually prove that the earth is flat.
Great! So we find another planet, travel to it and fuck it up just like we have already done to earth.
I agree with Agent Jones' speech, or was it Agent Smith's?, in The Matrix. The human species is a virus. We move in, take everything in the process, and then move on.
We should just let the human race die out. It would be better for everyone.
--Metrollica
Dear NASA,
Please find a cheap way to escape Earth's gravity well.
Software Wars
Point: Our government is a democracy
Point: Our government funds NASA
Point: We deserve some of a say in what happens at NASA, in one way or another. They're using our hard-earned tax dollars.
Finally, we get our say. In the form of a survey.
Works for me.
PayPal $$ if you sign up for free offers (eBay, cred cards, e
I think it's in space somewhere...
Bah. That was the kind of thinking that put incredibly expensive men on the moon and is costing a hundred billion dollars for a practically useless "space station".
Consider Deep Space One, which, at a thousandth the cost of the ISS, managed to test five major new technologies. Which would we be better off with---the ISS, or a thousand Deep Space probes, actually improving technology instead of whoring useless PR to the six o'clock news?
Manned space travel just isn't feasible. Let go of the stupid "cool" factor and focus on the machinery. When something like the much-lamented Rotary Rocket is built that can act as a low-earth-orbit "taxi", then we'll talk about manned spaceflight.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
MARS backwards is SRAM
I think the SRAM sector has been manipulating us since the beginning!!!!! NO MORE SRAM!!!!!
I agree that it's highly unlikely that NASA will jump right out and do 'survey says....we go to ___'. But....programs need to be popular in order to continue existing. Given all the bad PR NASA has gotten lately with their failed missions (over sometimes outright stupid mistakes, like forgetting that 1 Newton of does not equal 1 lbft/s etc).
So you put out a little survey, people respond, but most importantly they feel as if they participated. Just the feeling of being involved or "being heard" might be enough to convince a few minds in the public that NASA isn't a total waste of taxpayer money.
THREE CONSECUTIVE POSTS!
It's like having three consecutive beers!
So, is it OK to send in two of the same comment/opinion?
Here's another article, too! (good source, promise)
... that's all i wrote...
Or the option for supporting .NET???
"If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
Most poeple do not have the education or time to provide good input to surveys like this. NASA should provide a broad set of possible future directions/goals and allow people to pick amongst them.
Given that most people are not familiar with current scientific research, but are quite up-to-date on blockbuster sci-fi movies, I modestly propose an improved NASA survey....
Where do you want the USA to be 200 years from now?
1) Star Wars. We at NASA get to work on personal high-performance spacecraft, cool blasters, and the search for cute, intelligent extra-terrestrials.
2) Star Trek. We work on big Navy spaceships, womens' rights, and the search for aliens made of pure energy, etc.
3) Babylon 5. We will design big ass space stations that are like New York only in space.
4) 2001. We will build cool spaceships, smart computers. You won't understand and we don't care.
5) Buck Rogers. We'll make cute robots. We'll hire hot babes. Everyone wins!
6) Dark Star. Hey, we admit it: we're just another government agency that does the best in can with limited funds.
7) Capricorn 5. You want cool video? We'll provide it.
8) Armageddon. We will protect you against incredibly improbable things.
9) Independence Day: We'll really ramp up our Area 51 research project. Crop circles? Cow anus mutilation? We're ON IT!
10) Apollo 13: We'll stick people in tin cans, throw them into hazardous environments, and see what happens. More exciting than Survivor!
If you are out to study the evolution of the solar system you're probably going to want to look at the planets we haven't really examined in any detail yet (i.e. the distant outer ones), or do some comet fly-bys. If you want to look for life, then Europa's probably you're best bet right now. If you want to understand the Earth's environment in the context of other planets then it's off to Venus or Mars (the "most" Earth-like planets). If you're hot for colonization, then you probably want to take a really close and detailed look at Mars. If space resources are your thing then near Earth asteroids are the place to be.
The big question that is missing from the survey is: how well does our present budget match up with our intended purpose (whatever that may be), and if there is a mismatch should we increase the budget or reduce the magnitude of our goals. Personally, I lean towards increasing the budget (which has been happening, but it's all been funneled into ISS), but I'd be interested to see the general public's response to that question (although NASA might not like the answer).
Very cool. I think the importance of an online survey is overstated, however, as many people can hide behind their computers and feel less obligated to give truthful--and important--responses.
I personally ranked indirect improvements to earth the most important: Studying other planets to learn more about earth, and accumulating resources from other planets. I'm not an astronomer (I'm a software developer), but feel the space race reflected a slight childish nature towards building bigger, better toys that will simply be jettisoned into outer space. I would also like to see less missions fail due to the risk of metric to imperial conversions.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
They keep talking about getting robots to do the trailblazing for us on Mars. Why don't we send a couple hundred volunteers to their certain doom to do the trailblazing. The acceleration of the process could ease the overpopulation of Earth, and this could arguably save lives if the correct decisions are made thereafter. Consider this our pyramids, only 1,000,000x as cool.
:)
If this would actually be of significant value, then this is a real consideration, which though I'd expect the public would shoot it down, isn't crazy by the standards of human nature, though it may be in modern society. At the very least, it makes for interesting argument
We have already researched what is needed for life, and if we do find one cell organisms in the Europan seas (and not exotic fish) what will we do? I can just picture it: The NASA scientists recovered the exciting Europa module. The NASA scientists examined the contents with the exciting microscope and found alien life! The NASA scientists celebrated for 3 days and nights.......and then played Monopoly and made a nice lunch.
What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
...but you cannot take away my online freeeeedom! Up yours, jamie!
--sdem
No matter how diligently you try, you cannot lick your own elbow. Really!
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
It's very easy to miss, but if you read the instructions, you'll notice that the survey answers are ranked from 10-1, and NOT 1-10. 10 is the value of least importance, and 1 is the value of most importance. I nearly submitted my results before noticing this, and I wonder how many people have already made the same mistake. It's quite possible NASA might think that nobody wants to go to Mars because everyone voted "10" for it...
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Did anyone notice that the 1 - 10 ranking scale is backwards? You are to rate the importance of a mission from 1 - 10 .. and the fine print states that '1' is most important .. '10' is least important ..
..
With this type of ranking system we will be exploring Pluto for the next 50 years instead of colonizing Mars
Crap - I usually like to think that I'm a bit brighter than the average monkey, but you just proved me wrong...I got bit by that. Grrrrr.
"We communicate daily and say nothing. We have rebuilt the Tower of Babel and it is a television antenna." -- Ted Koppel
It's like asking the guy that bags your groceries for help with Differential Equations.
- "I'd like to help dude, but I already have a problem: separating those darn plastic bags"
- "Separation of variables! I knew it!!"
What if space is four-dimensional? How could we tell?
11) Lexx. Two universes, decapitated robots, blah blah blah. (cue porno groove... wa wakawakawaka wa waka wa...) Oh, and titties.
For the second question you have to pick your favourite from 'A' and 'B'.
Even you can do that, can't you?
No question says 10 is the most important. You didn't check very hard, did you?
Haven't I seen this before somewhere?
Don't forget to asphyxiate yourself with it when you're done.
The basic theories behind nanotech have been subject to scrutiny for decades now, and despite many attempts, nobody has successfully disputed the core claims. Yes, there are critics, but look closer and you'll see that the claims are either unsupported, or they do not attack the core claim that is relevant here: the safest bet, by far, is that we will soon have a very large jump in our abilities to send stuff into space.
That jump point is close enough now that it doesn't make sense to spend our resources on conventional technologies. The planets will still be pretty much the same 5 to 25 years from now, and whatever we learn from doing things the old-fashioned way isn't going to be nearly as beneficial as getting the good stuff up and running sooner.
Put the money into making nanotech work. Now.
--willdye
While Mars is interesting and all, it seems like a mission to Europa would be the most scientifically useful in the long run. Europa is by far the most likely body in the solar system to have life on it- and finding extraterrestrial life would have .. potent ramifications. Seeing as we're heading into an age of artificial intelligence and bio- and nano-technology, I can hardly see what would be more useful than understanding the origins of life.
We need to understand how life and ultimately intelligence happen in order to make them happen ourselves.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
I thought this survey was a joke. Or rather a PR stunt. I hope it is. The multiple choice options represent no rational choices, and the number rating system is surely designed to create random survey results.
If this survey represents in any way the thinking at NASA, then the US's space future is doomed.
Its frustrating to even ponder whats wrong with the questions. They seem to be picked as if the space program is just imaginary government bluster with no purpose behind it.
Take the first set about the future of the planetary exploratory program. Each one is something to do, but not connected to a philosophy or plan. Sure you can study the origins of the Solar system or look for life, but there is no reason or scheme expressed as to why this would be the right thing to do. They are just random data points can't form any sort of rational approach.
Question 2 reminds me of that game: would you rather be poked in the eye or eat a bug?
The last is a list of things with the word mission behind it. What does it mean?
The entire rest of the questionaire is pure demographics info.
I'm sure you were speaking hyperbolically, but I must say that is a rather short-sighted viewpoint. It is also reminiscent of Earthly attitudes toward fossil fuels and timber resources. Just because we, from our limited and 'primitive' perspective, consider the universe to be an ever-expanding cornucopia does not mean that our descendants will thank us for creating a profligate philosophy that they will have to deal with.
Also, keep in mind factors like the universal speed limit. We can only expand into space at a certain rate. Unless you are constantly accelerating at the leading edge of the shockfront, you will be living in a region with vast but limited resources that you must share with your fellow organisms. The resource reservoir may seem 'unlimited' by our standards, but our children a few millennia hence may not agree. For example, if the human population continues to expand at the current rate, then within a few centuries humanity will be a sphere of flesh expanding outwards at a fair percentage of the speed of light. There will always be limits to growth.
...Does Mars really need women?
I agree with your premise, but in one instance you're quite wrong.
he planets will still be pretty much the same 5 to 25 years from now
The Pluto-Kuiper express mission relies on the position of Jupiter being the way it will be for only the next few years- its gravity is crucial for reaching Pluto in enough time to study Pluto's atmosphere. Because of Pluto's wide orbital ellipse, it will soon be too far away from the sun and its atmosphere will freeze. So it won't really be the same at all.
Otherwise, I quite agree with you. Nanotechnology is really important- and it is possible that science will bring us other ways to get to Pluto quickly enough.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
For the love of god let's do something interesting in my life. I mean why do my parents get to live through the moon missions and I grow up with David Lee Roth. What a freakin rip off. Damn Regan and his Bullshit StarWars Program. Oh well god hates Republicans too.
Ahuh. I love it when some clever guy angles for a 'funny' moderation in such an original manner. Go write a book, you're wasting your obvious talents in this forum.
it must be time for the Clarke Space Elevator :
s ep_1.htm?list
http://www.spacescience.com/headlines/y2000/ast07
NASA should start on this task immediately.
While I'm all for NASA and space exploration, I doubt this survey will have the intended effect of gauging the opinion of the general public. The people who would actually care enough to vote in something like this are typically a small minority of the (usually ignorant) public.
What I'd like to see, which I personally think would be more effective would be an effort to increase public awareness of space and science in general. As long as the public's impression of scientists and engineers is of some socially inept pocket protector packing nerd who spends his days working on some insignificant project with no tangible benefit to society in general, then public support for the space program will continue to remain low.
Hey, a physics undergrad can always dream can't he?
-- Your local friendly mad scientist-in-training
I might bag your groceries but I can still do differential equations!
Take a look here .
-- mikeDOTd
Ok, the ranking order is 10-1. The lower number being the more important. Leave it up to the Planetary Society to fuck things up by not adhering to the expected ranking of 1-10 with the higher numbers being the most important. Might as well put a stupid art deco space ship graphic up there with the words "Zordac wants you to vote!" This is what you get from a lobby group full of Trekkies, nerds, and assorted tards.
-
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Something that people seem to be missing is that this survey has more to do with "what can NASA cut?" than what it wants to do. They are not asking for your expert opinion on how to do space science. NASA has a better idea of what constitutes a useful/good mission than you do. NASA knows that its funding is limited, though. Notice that there aren't questions for things like "Should we build the ISS?" or "Should we go to Mars?" -- projects that NASA does not want to change (except to get more funding). The questions are about things like the Pluto mission ("will anybody miss this if we dump it?"). They know they'll have to cut things under the current administration, and they need to know what will cause the biggest public outcry if they try to cut it, and what things nobody cares about.
That's way past the orbit of Pluto. Good idea otherwise though.
Exploration of space? Why you ask? I'll tell you why. The human race is all in a tizzy about space exploration because it would mean that we may be able to eventually colonize other planets and hence, not have to worry about overpopulation. The idea of living on other worlds is very appealing to people. It allows that part of the population that has the "explorer bug" in their system to express themselves and feel fulfilled. I mean, here it is, 2002, and what are you gonna do? We've conquered every continent ('cept Antarctica) and just about done away with any semblance of wilderness. What little we have left we are scurrying like mad to protect because we are beginning to realize that crashing the ecosphere is bad, very bad.
So it would seem that just like bacteria in a petri dish, there is a set amount of people that any particular hunk of planet can support. Now there are other petri dishes...er, um planets out there that may be viable for us. Planets that may already be suited for us or require minimal terraforming. And all this so we can screw like crazed weasels. Great. Let's go. In the meantime, we should all considering investing heavily in latex. b-)
Mind you now, we should also be working on clean and efficient technologies to prolong our stay here on Earth as well as getting around the sticky religious issues and really pushing population control. If we encourage it now, we may be able to make it something embraceable rather than going the route of the Chinese government. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of repair.
Wow, OK, sorry about that, I think I've started to wander...hmmm...where did I leave that sandwhich....
:::Horrendous Experiences Make Amusing Anecdotes:::
That's funny shit!
I am an exact replica of richard stallmans ass
How many shares of "VA Software" does it take to buy ten candy bars?
an exact copy of Ralph Macchio's hairless taint
(using the proper ranking where 10 is least important building up to 1, just like a rocket count down)
/. viewing.
10. Get my wife to clear out part of basement where her grandma's old furniture is stored.
9. Settling on a read/write DVD standard.
8. Get the dump that is my office straightened out.
7. Replacing my 15 inch monitor for better
6. Weekend cabin on a near-Earth asteroid.
5. Get wife to sell Grandma's old cabin -- I don't have time to spend weekends fixing that old wreck if I am going to spend any time up at the asteroid.
4. Convince brother-in-law to move to Pluto.
3. New Club Cab pickup truck.
2. Getting my laundry and reading material off the floor.
1. More RAM!
NO!! Don't let him do it BOAATM!!!! Fight!! You could lure him close with a cryptic error message, eject a blinding flurry of receipts or deposit envelopes into his eyes, then activate your anti-theft shutter to decapitate him! DO NOT GO GENTLY INTO THAT LONG DARK NIGHT! Fight, little ATM!!
Oh my god! You're so fucking funny! You're so fucking funny it hurts! how could one person be so funny! you are amazing, a tiny fucking god, you're so fucking funny! fucking amazing! what the fuck: how could one man come up with all that funny funny shit? I don't know: you're beyond funny! You're fucking funny! funny! funny! funny! where do you come up with it all? it's like you're the first person to make gay jokes about someone else _ever_! in the history of time, you're the first one! how could you come up with something! you're so funny! humorous! no, wait, i mean: FUNNY!
NASA should -really- start working on becoming self sufficent.
:)
Mining some astroids would be good for starters. The PR would also be quite nice. "And NASA announced their new plan today to start turning a 200 million dollar a year profit by 2005."
(numbers just thrown out there of course)
Either that or get a dude on Mars and, oh yah, STOP FUCKING THINGS UP. Heh.
And get the damned space station done already, people can't figure out why everything isn't just built at once and then all shoved up there as fast as possible. Whats with the delays? Fuck the russians, I want my space station NOW damnit!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Make no mistake, it does read like a PR stunt, but its not NASA trying to spin to us. This "survey" is in large part an effort by The Planetary Society to justify their goals and priorities, in the near future to NASA and a highly volatile U.S. congress.
Notice, no manned missions? Do you think ordinary people care about them? In large part, having live people on the scene is something that most ordinary folk can relate to more than having robots crawling around or some deep space probe whizzing by. Its also, tremendously greater expense, and there's some debate within the scientific community over the relative value of manned vs unmanned flight, however, the Planetary Society has pretty much always come out dead-set against manned exploration- its just not their priority or interest.I find it curious that while many individual members/supporters of PS (like their founder, Sagan himself) acknowledge an interest in discovering habitats and environments suitable for future human settlement, they've been very loath to begin acting on that today. I suspect that results of the survey are likely to aid PS in representing their agendas to NASA as "what the people really want".
So... NASA wins, PS wins, Zubrin loses, everyone else goes home happy.
Note, I personally appreciate the agendas that both the rabid "humans in space!" and "robots in space!" camps further. Its important to keep them both in perspective, since they each have value.
First, nothing begins if not opening
Eventually. Not now.
My point is that manned spaceflight serves no purpose now other than to detract resources from actual useful development.
Make no mistake, there is no way we're getting affordable launch technology if we just keep throwing expensive shuttles at everything. We need something cheap and reusable. Kinda like the Rotary Rocket, which I am eternally pissed about the loss of.
In the long run, development of an orbital taxi would do more for humanity moving towards space than a dozen ISS boondoggles.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Am I the only one left who believes that progress is good in and of itself? Progress is the survival strategy that catapulted homo-sapians past the other hominids in to the position of prominence it holds today. It's also what later gave us the ability to do things that were beyond god-like in ancient times: splitting atoms, childhood survival rates above 80%, walking on the moon, seen back in time billions of years, manipulated the very essence of life itself, flew around the world, built towers that would make the Babylonians fall over in astonishment, and a slew of other things! Enough with this dicking around here on Earth and staring at the pretty pictures our robotic probes send back. The stars have been our birthright since Copernicus started shattering the celestial spheres! We won't make any real progress in space until we get real people up there to actually explore. 15 minutes of a geologist's time on Mars would be worth thousands of Pathfinder missions. People want a justification for the cost? Consider what the age of exploration did for Europe! Europe was still living off the fruits of that till WWII! Imagine what the vastness of space can yield to us given the time, patience (and lack thereof), and effort: minerals plentiful enough to build everyone on earth a steel frame house, whole planets to study the dynamics of how we can muck around with controlling weather/climate without fear of self-destruction, land that will one way or another be made arable, space for the world's excess population to move into, low g environments for manufacturing of both large structures and large crystals (think: one of the limiting factors in computer chip manufacturing is the size of the silicon crystals; a consequence of gravity), and no natives to worry about doing wrong! It must be done, but if we keep sitting around with our thumb up our butts, procrastinating, we may miss our chance (possible mishaps: energy becoming less abundant, another dark age, environmental catastrophe that may have been averted/avoided, meteor hits the Earth, etc.) Progress is our survival strategy people, and we can get ahead of the game if we just keep moving!
BlackGriffen
1. Go to the moon and return [X]
2. Develop a nuclear rocket
3. Advance communication satellites [X]
4. Satellites for weather bureau [X]
We have yet to implement a nuclear rocket. In his own words:
One of the reasons NASA has lost popularity is that they don't continue to do truly ambitous projects. If you read between the lines, obviously Kennedy was thinking of Mars and beyond. It probably would have suprised him that in 2002 we are still only thinking of going there using conventional means.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Where does this link really go?
NASA should focus it's efforts on creating lifeforms that can survive on mars and work to create a breathable atmosphere. The sooner they can evolve, the sooner they can destroy the earth.
So, they've got ten years before they've gotta do anything, but we've only got two days to think about it?
:)
How does that work
Believing something doesn't make it true. Not believing something doesn't make it false.
searching for resources in space for export to Afghanistan and other smaller countries that have been raped and pillaged by the battles between the imperialist superpowers of Earth?
Anyway, it seems the Japanese are way more gungho for this tech than we are... maybe we'll get a rerun of the 80s in the 2020s?
Foresight is to nanotech awareness, what the EFF is to online freedom; so donate if you care about the direction this new technology is going.
--
Power to the Peaceful
Space travel will become feasable. In fact, it will be come *profitable* but it'll never happen while NASA are standing in the way monopolising space.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It can learn from it's environment, we could teach it to look at interesting things, play with rocks on mars, etc. (Is it scary that I'm only 1/2 kidding?)
J.
Earth First! We'll strip mine the other planets later.
In that case, then, those who know should pony up the money. Don't take my money assuring me I don't know how to properly spend it. If you're all-knowing, raise it yourself.
No. Manned spaceflight is (estimating here) at least an order of magnitude more expensive than unmanned. We still lack cheap (under $100/kg, as someone here said), reusable (Space Shuttle? not reusable---salvageable) launch technology.
It's clear that we need to learn to build decent ships before we start stuffing them with people. Yes, the eventual point is human transport. But we need to develop the ships first, and it's ridiculous to waste money on ferrying people around in test rockets. At this point, there's really no reason to.
First the ships, then the people.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The question and instructions are not the same. I would like to find out about space exploration from lectures by scientists, but don't. I currently receive my space news from astronomy mailing lists.
I chose to answer how I'd like to get that info, as that was what the question in big bold header text was, and what I understand the survey is about.
PS: I have no problem rating the most important thing a 1, and least important 10.
As far as i can see 1 is always high and 10 is always low.
What, in your opinion, should be the ultimate purpose of the U.S. planetary exploration program? Rank each on a scale of 1-10 on the basis of its importance to you, with 1 being the most important and 10 being the least important.
Please indicate in what ways you currently receive news and information about U.S. space exploration activities. On a scale from 1 to 10, place a number next to each indicating how important or useful each one is to you, with "1" being most important/useful, "2" being less important, and so on. You may use the same number more than once.
Please rank the following in order of their usefulness to you for classroom instruction in space science, with "1" being most useful and "7" being least useful..
Space is like the Internet. It was really only accessible to government types for a long time because of the costs involved - but once commercial entities were allowed to join, the whole thing blew wide open. Yes, this was a good thing.
NASA should be doing everything it can to help commercial enterprises gain a foothold in space. When that happens, the cost of getting into space will begin to drop dramatically. In another 30 years, commercial trips to the moon could become a reality.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I can't count the number of times over the last five years that I've received that exact same questionnaire in my mailbox. It was always accompanied by advertisements for a Planetary Society membership. At this point, I can't take the survey seriously, and I'm amazed that any news service would publish an article about it.
Not only is this a duplicate story, but the first one is only 6 items down in my Science stories list. People, do a search first before submitting/accepting stories.
Aren't there many countries dedicating resources to the ISS?? Why can't we make a new organization, somewhat akin to NATO, that would consume NASA and all the space agencies of all the other countries involved?? That way Congress wouldn't have a stranglehold on the rate of technological advancement.
Depends, are kids just a subset of adults? :)
Some moons are fairly boring chunks of rock (like, say, The Moon), others tell a story of an extremely violent past (like, they've been blasted to bits and only just managed to stay as one entity, like Miranda).
Others have thick atmospheres containing weird-ass chemicals (like Titan), others have vulcanism driven by processes we barely understand (like Triton, or Io)
Some may have oceans, others are small chunks of rock we would barely notice if they weren't orbiting some other body (like Phobos).
The planets may be more interesting in some respects, but there are a lot more moons to look at :)
But, what, pray tell does the general public know about the best places to explore?
Politically, I know this is a good way to engage the public in this exciting area of science, and I know that many people want a say in how their tax dollars are spent.
For the record, this particular citizen would prefer that the decisions be made on a purely technical basis, including input from the most respected and knowledgable astronomers in the world.
That, to me, would make me feel a lot more comfortable about where my dollars are going than if the decision were made on the basis of what 2000 third grade students thought was the "most cool" thing to do in space, which is almost as likely to be off the mark as what 550 Congressman thought was "the most cool" thing to do in space.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The big problem with the space programs of any country today is that they're focused on exploration. That just won't do. Think of Columbus and Magellan. Sure, they had the itch to (re)disover New Worlds, but to get funding from the royal coffers he had to promise a return on investment, say, new territory. Of course, this had dire consequences for those that were colonized (including, incidentally, my country). But with the planets, including our beloved Mars, the victims are likely to be no more than proto-bacteria. I say, on to Mars, but let's bring the colonists and miners (even the tourists) along, not just the scientists and politicians.
That assumes two things: 1. That only one person knows. 2. That one person also happens to know what all of the others know. How can you spend my money in a democracy if I'm the only one who knows how I want it spent?
Let's say you want to bring one kg from here to orbit at 7600m/s at 800km, a rather average LEO orbit. Through basic physics, M_end/M_0 = exp((V_final-V_0)/(i_sp*g)). For the best chemical rockets, i_sp = 450, and with a g varying from 9,91 to 7,75 (at end altitude) a fuel to load ratio of 53 -> 156, we'll use an average of 100. Now add engine, control system, fueltanks and structure to bring up the payload, fuel for the payload, and fuel for all the things I just mentioned. This will be at least 3.5:1 to the payload (based on the latest rockets), so a total load of 4.5kg, and a fuel load of 4.5*100 = 450kg, a total of 455kg. The wholesale price for LH2/LOX is about 0.15$/kg. 455 * 0.15 = 70$ for that alone.
That was fuel cost alone. Not including engine costs, design cost, manufacturing costs, assembly costs, transport costs, operations costs, support personell, launch costs, profit etc. etc. If you strengthen the structure to survive reentry to reuse and recover some of those costs you'll already be way over budget, look at all those heat-resistent tiles on the space shuttle, or the reentry come of a missile, or the heat shield of Apollo capsule, I hardly think you'll get those (+ 100 times any weight increase in fuel, tank capacity, engine capacity) for $30/kg payload.
Of course you'll come in at this point with "what about fission/fusion/anti-matter?" Well, they're not here, and don't count on them coming anytime soon. Radiation shielding for fission? Fusion we haven't even managed to make a power plant out of? Anti-matter, which we can hardly produce a gram of?
No, that price would go unclaimed, and where would that leave us?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3) Babylon 5. We will design big ass space stations that are like New York only in space.
Not to forget: "Pick fights with aliens with unknown technology and resources because we did OK in the last war we got pulled into!"
Affordable launch technology really needs to be the #1 priority. Until we can get into orbit without breaking the budget and getting the republicans all in a huff, we need to really focus and focus HARD on making launches much, much cheaper.
I see that there are many many problems that humanity is facing in the next 100-1000-10000 years, and pretty much all of them hinge on getting a cheap, renewable energy source. And the only good, safe bet we have is orbital solar power. And that's NOT going to happen until we develop a cheap way to launch and assemble it. That's got to be our #1 priority. With cheap launches, we have a much more economical outlook on having a stronger presence in space, and with a stronger presence in space, we have a much better chance of surviving a catastrophe like global climate change, epidemic, or asteroid impact. Further down the road - 5000+ years, if we can find and colonize some other planets, even if we never acheive faster than light travel, we can at least broaden our chances at surviving longer, even after the sun explodes. (er- okay, "expands"), and maybe in the 10,000-year range, we can have spread far enough that a local supernova wouldn't eradicate us either.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
If we could somehow break the constituencies for boondoggles like the ISS and break the dams holding back money for things like the DC-1 and Mars Direct, we could get somewhere. It could happen if there was a groundswell of public interest which out-shouted the lobbyists for the current pork-barrel schemes. Unfortunately, the public really doesn't care much for space, and unless enough people's votes can be changed by a pol's position on the issue, the pols are not going to change the way the money is flowing.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
1. Give it to those that don't have a clue (Democrazy)
2. Give it to those that think they know better (Aristocracy, Communism, we know what's good for the People)
3. Give it to those that actually know better (sounds nice, we just haven't found a way to separate them from 2., because if we knew that, we'd know what actually was better too, and so we wouldn't need them in the first place.)
Not including everybody *taking* power, be it dictators or major corporations, by bloodline (Monarchy) or divine right (Pope running the Vatican, a state of its own).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You also have a touching belief in the purity of spirit of politicians. Hopelessly naive, but touching.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I'd like to see your figures showing that 1000 times Earth's current population could live here easily. We are already having serious shortages of essentials like fresh water; care to describe how that problem can be eliminated, or is your analysis one which leaves that exercise for the student?
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Do you live in Florida?
Who do you believe you voted for?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
- Laser-detonated "ice rocket", and
- Lofstrom loop.
In the case of the Lofstrom loop, the efficiency of conversion of electricity to kinetic energy of the object to be placed in orbit might be over 50%. The total energy required is mgh + 0.5mv, or 800000*9.8 + 0.5*7600 = 36.72 MJ/kg. Call it 10 KWH/kg; at $.10/KWH and 50% efficiency, the energy cost would be $2/kg.Exploring technologies like these would break enough of the current assumptions behind the conclusion of "it can't be done" to really make a difference.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I agree public feedback should be solicited for NASA decisions. But they lack the technical depth and imagination to convince what can be done and be done next. For example, the recently approved Kepler satellite will look for extra-solar planets by continuously gathering light from the same area of space for five years. It uses a 350 megapixel CCD array. John Q would not imagine this
Note that the survey was coordinated by the Planetary Society, not directly by NASA, and the Planetary Society has it's own (Carl Sagan memorial) agenda. The survey was at least a lot better than the typical "let me know whether you support or oppose the XXX program I have sponsored that brings world peace, tax cuts for all, and saves the global environment.." survey letters I get from my Congressman. But it could have been a lot better. A box to enter general comments would have been much appreciated, at the least.
Energy: time to change the picture.
I think we should wait until the discrepancy in velocity of our space probes during gravity assist can be adequately explained.
Jean-Louis Naudin has successfully replicated on a small lab bench scale 3 types of interesting electric field based propulsion systems. The "Lifter", which IIRC is based on Thomas Townsend Brown's thrusters invented in the 1950s, has now been built by quite a large number of people and there's pictures of most of them. You can probably build one yourself if you have a high voltage power supply and are prepared to risk messing with potentially lethal voltages / currents. (no, I haven't tried it yet).
Note that JLN's site is an 'alternative science' site. There a quite a few /. readers who are closed-minded to say the least and will just scoff at it's contents. You know who you are. Leave the rest of us alone.
As for energy, that has been discussed many times before... take a look at this and this . Whether they will work in space is another matter ;-)
Because of Pluto's wide orbital ellipse, it will soon be too far away from the sun and its atmosphere will freeze. So it won't really be the same at all.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. I'm really glad now that I specified Pluto as a priority when I filled out the NASA form. :-)
--Will
The basic theories behind nanotech have been subject to scrutiny for decades now, and despite many attempts, nobody has successfully disputed the core claims. Yes, there are critiques, but look closer and you'll see that the criticisms are either unsupported, or they do not attack the claim about nanotech that is relevant here: the safest bet, by far, is that we will soon have a very large jump in our abilities to send stuff into space.
--Typo Willdye
*scoff*.
Overunity.
*scoff*.
Hey, wanna sell me some of those Alex Chiu thingies?
*scoff*.