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."
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.
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 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.
Manned space travel just isn't feasible.
Isn't feasible NOW. That is exactly the point of researching it.
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.
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:::
It's our money, shouldn't we have a say as to what it should be spent on?
No. Not unless you have a clue what you're deciding about. This is one of the major problems inherent in democracy: Nobody (apart from the Emperor himself) knows how long the Emperor of China's nose is, but everyone has an opinion. The one person who knows gets outvoted by the billion who don't.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
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
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.
We've got a space station that does nothing, a shuttle fleet that's an aging joke, some moon rocks, and a bunch of unmanned probes sending back some truly amazing data about the solar system which, incidentally, is useful only if we follow up with real people.
We have universities to do research in space, we have industries to build factories in space, we have millions of entrepreneurs with ideas on how to use space and make a buck in the process. But they can't do a thing as long as they're down here.
I think we're trying to argue the same point here. NASA has had 40 years to open up space to the general population; by any account, their performance towards that end has been abysmal. With the kind of money they threw at Apollo and are throwing now at the ISS, we should have seen some progress by now. No such luck.
Personally, I think they should take NASA's budget for the next 10 years and offer it as a reward to anyone who can build a LEO launch system that works for under $100/kg.
Dyolf Knip
Oh well said. All NASA seems to have done for the past few decades is Small Science, at Big Science prices.
We need more Freeman Dysons in NASA, and less accountants, bureacrats, and cogs-in-the-machine engineers.
It wouldn't be so bad if they don't plan everything so far in advance that they've even erased HOPE that they'll do something interesting.
Space should be opened up for everyone, not just those with advanced degrees in aeronautical engineering.
Most of NASA's political logjam exists further upstream... in the Congress that authorizes NASA's funding. In recent years, Congress has been less ambitious, pushing NASA into pursuing relatively risk-free, low-excitement endeavors. NASA's massive bureaucracy exists in part to appease Congress, which demands detailed accountability.
Another problem with Congress is that representatives tend to only authorize projects which bring jobs to their state or district.
NASA is a governmental entity, so it's little surprise that it's finally acting like one. If NASA is to become fun again, it will have to grow more autonomous. During its heyday, it had free rein to do whatever it wanted to beat the Russians. It was expensive to do so, but at least it got results. These days, NASA is still expensive, but its lackluster performace of late leaves the public wondering why they fund it at all.
Two cock in my pussy! It feel so good!