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!
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.
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
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).
Of course manned spaceflight's not feasible, it costs more than it's weight in gold to put something in orbit. As you said, when we have cheap launch costs then we can talk. Except NASA isn't interested in cheap launches. I noticed that 'improve launch technology beyond ancient rocket levels' isn't on the survey anywhere. They have zero interest in expanding our presence in space. Left to them, we'll have the finest satellite system in the world and nothing else.
Dyolf Knip
Manned space travel just isn't feasible.
Isn't feasible NOW. That is exactly the point of researching it.
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."
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
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
For instance, how much would you pay to spend a week-long vacation in orbit? Or move to a retirement home in Luna's 1/6th gravity? Did you know there's more metals, a lot of them quite valuable, sitting in that hunk o' junk Eros than the human race has mined from the ground in it's entire existence? Any idea the kind of stuff manufacturing could do with abundant vacuum, near Zero K temperatures, and microgravity? How big you can make a space habitat when you're not limited to earth-made materials?
Again, none of this exists today because it's insanely expensive just to get off the ground.
Dyolf Knip
NASA should start on this task immediately.
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
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.