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."
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Bah.. why find a cheap way to escape gravity when we could simply do away with it.
Dear Nasa,
Please find a way to destroy the earth so that all of mankind can have a chance to goto space -- and fast.
Rod Taylor
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).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
So why haven't you killed yourself yet?
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
Great! So we find another planet, travel to it and fuck it up just like we have already done to earth.
I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this irks me a lot. Do you have any concept of just how vast "outer space" is? We could go on using and destroying world after world for literally billions and billions and billions of years and we will NEVER RUN OUT. There are vastly more resources in space than there are here on earth. We *can't* abuse space, no matter how hard we try, becuase, for human purposes, there is a virtually limitless amount of energy (and thus matter) out there...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
I'm sure someone who actually knows about this stuff has looked into the possibily of such a launch system. but I'd be interested in any pointers to discussions of such a system.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
You're assuming that the human population will stay at relatively the same amount. If the earth and every planet we colonize colonizes another planet every 50 years or so, we'll run out of planets a lot sooner than you think.
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
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 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.
Possibly more economical would be to build one that launches a plane at mach 7 (a mere 2.3 kps), whereupon the scramjet kicks in and takes it up to the mach 26 or so needed for orbit. There's bunches of optimizations you can use, but suffice to say it works best in a vacuum.
Dyolf Knip
Problems with electromag acceleration launchers (essentially massive railguns):
Payload is subject to very high acceleration (since all of your V is acquired during launch), some sort of rocket boosters will probably be used for escaping the Terran gravity well in conjunction with the launchers. You won't be launching any live cargo, unless you want it not so live when it gets into orbit.
Power reqirements are very high, we'd probably have to dedicate a nuke plant to supply a steady stream of reliable power for launch.
Noise problems - launch will probably exceed speed of sound, which means your launcher and the payload flight path will have to be away from populated areas.
Space (physical space). You'll need miles of secure track, miles of superconducting wire, space for the loading facility, and several miles downrange of the launcher (for saftey).
It has been suggested that a mountain would make a good launcher, some where in one of the newly industrialized nations (like India, or China) where the governmencould dedicate the space by fiat.
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
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.
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:::
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
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
Scramjet in an atmosphere. Pure catapault in a vacuum. Sorry, it looked clear enough when I wrote it.
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!
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.
Earth First! We'll strip mine the other planets later.
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
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?
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.
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."
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
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
- 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
200 trillion if we learn to eat poo and love it!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Mona Kea, Hawaii would be MY choice. I'll scout it out for the rest of y'all, 'k?
As a bonus, there's already a big space/scientific community there for Keck. Rocket components can be delivered from west-coast aerospace industries like Boeing and Lockheed via ocean vessel, and it's closer to the equator than any other US territory, PLUS it's halfway to Russia, so Cosmonauts and RSA personnel on joint ventures can easily access it. PLUS, having a big electromagnetic "anything" launcher pointed westward in the middle of the pacific would REALLY piss China off.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I forgot, geologists (vulcanologists) are also a dime-a-dozen on Hawaii. I'm sure they'd also want to be close to where the "action" is in exogeology research.
The only PROBLEM with this, is that Hawaii has such a small population, they can't lobby congress effectively for big-budget-science projects like this. So we'll probably end up locating this thing in Texas instead.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
oops - I meant "Eastward!" Westward was the wrong direction.
On the other hand, Southern California wouldn't be a bad choice either. Good weather, close to JPL in Pasadena, close to Vandenburg.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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.
200 trillion if we learn to eat poo and love it!
What do you think wheat is? It's just refined poo.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"