Slashdot Mirror
NASA Seeks Geniuses and Visionaries
Dotnaught writes "The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts has put out a call for 'revolutionary ideas to advance the Vision for Space Exploration.' Would-be visionaries are invited to submit their ideas by February 13, 2006, as explained in this Call for Proposals. Phase 1 grants range from $50K to $75K. Phase 2 grants go up to $400K. Sample grand visions include how to create a 'self-sustaining, human presence throughout the solar system' and 'truly autonomous robotic operations for exploration and habitation.'" If any Slash users end up with the grants, we call dibs on interviews.
I think there should be a space shuttle that doesn't use foam.
What about, cleaning space trash?
-- When did Ignorance Become a Point of View?
Genetically modify humans for space travel. Characteristics include low gravity condition and extended life DNA programming. As soon as I get off of this LSD trip I will try to submit it.
I thought Isaac Asimov had some great visions of possibilities for space exploration, and robotics usage....
Not exactly rocket science is it? oh..
/. is good for you.
I figured out how to fit the carbon dioxide filters from the Command Module to the LEM! Hire me!
How do you find out if someone is a genius or visionary in the course of an interview? I think a true genius or visionary would come off as a nut, or at least someone who is unable to work in a team, in an interview. It seems to me that the interview process is designed to filter out geniuses and visionaries.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I'm an astrophysicist, currently not working in academia. This is the sort of thing we dream of - the opportunity to pitch our ideas to someone who is interested in and understands the value of science.
I once had a high tech compnay tell me they "didn't have much call for physics", I didn't have the heart to tell them it was physics than made their computers work and not magic.
I know I'll be working on my ideas to submit. Thanks for the chance NASA!
...propose something that could also be modified by the military to be used as a weapon or to spy on "terrorists"
(or fellow Americans, judging by Bushs latest statements...)
Do you hear that? It's the sound of someone trying to justify their unemployment.
This sounds like a cheap way to get new ideas, not that there's anything wrong with that. I once went to a job interview and one of the questions was "How would you implement a trackerless bittorrent protocol?" I had to laugh and say "If I knew how to do that I sure as hell wouldn't give it away in an interview"
Needless to say I didn't hear from them.
I read it over. They aren't after pitch ideas but formal proposals. That includes detailed cost projections, translated how the money will be spent. You're applying for a grant not throwing ideas out there to win a prize. If you've never applied for a grant it's a waste of your time and theirs. That said it's amazing they are opening wide for grant proposals.
The RIAA? Do I win?
NIAC has put out these calls once or twice a year since the late 90's. It's a cool organization, and I'm not saying that just because they've given me grants -- they've funded lots of really good work in many fields. Now if only NASA proper would follow up on more of it...
Q: Why did Captain Kirk pee on the ceiling?
A: To go where no man has gone before.
Honestly, there's a great scene in Apollo 13 where the crew was staring out the Command Module window as the waste tank was sprayed out into the space. NASA needs some great toilet bowl thinkers if they want to succeed.
No.
This is not a PR stunt.
Agencies do this all of the time, they just don't normally get FP'd on Slashdot. The people who usually respond to these things are university labs.
For instance, I am a research assistant, and worked under a similar proposal for the development of Artificial Intelligence. My advisor being the contractor under which the work was done.
The work is in multiple phases, with updates to the funding agency (DARPA) every year or so, and the money amounts are synonymous (though, DARPA has a lot more cash).
If you're looking for PR stunts, look at the DARPA Grand Challenge. No money up-front, and $2 million to the winning team out of a field of over 200 teams, with no cash going out the first year.
For DARPA research, those are bargain basement prizes. That said, I took part, and it was a wonderful experience. Perhaps PR stunts aren't so bad.
If they want to have a team of professionals looking at certain ideas, trying to develop something new, they have to pay for a lab, offices, expensive buys that the scientifics will ask for their lab, the rather high salaries they would have to pay to the scientists, plus the salaries of their assistans, AND, when someone has a great idea, and it's put into practice, they will have to give him a grant WAY, WAY, BIGER than the one they are offering now.
/.ers are crazy for space exploration, but most people out there, after all the circus arround the suposed moon trip, and the government constantly telling them that the only important thing they should be spending money in is in paying the fucking army to "protect" them from "terrorists", people just don't trust the NASA, they think that the NASA is a waste of tax dollars, and are not really exited about space exploration at all.
This way, they don't spend a cent, and have thousands of people working for free, and each of those persons are paying their own infrastructure. If someone has a good idea, they will just give him a small payment (the payment is small considering what they usually spend in research done in more conventional ways).
Also, there is the press and public image. The NASA needs more money. And they current public image is not really very good. In order to get more money from the government, they need to improve their public image, and they need to get people interested in space exploration.
This is also a way to try to change that, and get people willing to open their wallets again like they did in the 60s.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Probably because most jobs that interview don't require geniuses or visionaries. They need people that work.
Ever been to a meeting with someone who thinks their job is to think outside the box? Half of it is sheer undoable mental masturbation. The parts that can be done are generally thought to be the work of someone else. Geniuses and visionaries are a dime a dozen; great ideas are a given. Give me someone that can actually implement their great idea or vision (or can even be bothered to concieve of a process to make the idea tangible) and then we have something to talk about.
You seem to subscribe to the idea that geniuses and visionaries are unable to handle other people, working in a team, or maybe even a workplace environment. While this may be true of people with Aspareger's (sp?) syndrome, it certainly does not need to be the case. And also, what good are geniuses and visionaries if they cannot communicate well enough to get their ideas across and implemented? I'd take someone who can get things done over someone who has good ideas but can't ever make them work.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
How do you find out if someone is a genius or visionary in the course of an interview? I think a true genius or visionary would come off as a nut, or at least someone who is unable to work in a team, in an interview.
If he jumps on your desk, pulls down his pants, and starts drinking his own pee, he's a nut. If he purifies the pee with a filter he designed himself before he drinks it, he's a genius.
Only if they is grammatically correct.
-- You ain't seen me, right?
I'm confused when I get modded a troll or flamebate when I'm being a little pessimistic based on reality and reason.
I guess the egg might be still too wet on NASA's face to bust them for wrecking stuff pretty regularly for the past 6 years or so.
NASA needs changing. I've been in a relationship with a PhD that worked at NASA for quite some time. I've been reading NASA publications like Spinoff since about 1977 or 1978. I've known plenty of people that work at NASA that are nervous every 5 to 7 years because they talk about doing massive center closings. I've been involved with research at NASA for a few years. 2 of my closest coworkers worked at NASA for a total of 20 years or so. In other words, I know a little about the agency, but am not as biased or blinded as a direct employee.
NASA needs to change. Their wrecking stuff is embarrassing. They used to be able to put people on the moon with slide rules and "computers" which were typically women that worked out math by long hand with redundancy and double checking conflicting answers. The Space Shuttle was a failure in every respect except some of it was able to be reused. However, the reuse had an unexpected side effect in that it prohibited progress that kept us using 1970s technology for a long time despite the progress in things like material science, chemistry, physics, CAD, and many, many orders of magnitude of computing progress vs doing calculations with slide rules and pencil and paper. They Space Shuttle was also a failure in that it was way too expensive, its cargo capacity was too small and not expandable.
I dunno.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In English English there is a colloqualism "genius" that means means the exact reverse; "What genius did this!"
With that in mind, do we really think NASA needs more geniuses (genii?) and visionaries? I think they need more people that can roll up their sleeves, get their thumbs out of their posteriors, and get some darned work done. JPL seems the only bastion of sense and progress in this massive faceless beauracracy. The rest of it seems to be stuck on the vexing question of exactly what color should the foam on the shuttle external tank ramp be? And should the diameter of the CEV be more or less than it was in 1968... Aggghhhh!!!!
(Sorry Douglas Adams)
Call me angry? No, I'm just a voiceless tax payer.
I don't care who uses my idea as long as it gets used. (If I'm not too lazy I'll submit a proposal anyway but I think this idea shoud be submitted by whoever can write the best proposal.)
Novel method for changing orbit of small planetary body (asteroid/comet).
Abstract: Using a tethered "sling" to release pieces of a small planetary body, an small (inexpensive) payload delivered to a body rotating at a sufficient rate can effectively convert its rotational energy into directed kinetic energy. Tether, which may be attached to said body via cables or netting, can also generate power for its own operations, obviating a need for a large power source. Since only a small fraction of the mass is to released at any one time, problems such as excessive accelration, breakup of body etc. will be avoided. This has numerous applications in asteroid/comet defense, asteroid mining etc.
Main text: Previous proposals for changing the orbital path of a small planetary body have included delivering an explosive charge to said body (typically nuclear) for impact on or near it, moving the body directly through the use of ion drives or mass accelerators or even gravitional attraction by a sufficiently large spacecraft. These ideas unfortantely suffer from various problems such as possibility of fracturing said body or high costs due to large spacecraft or energy sources being sent over interplanetary distances. Still the consequences of a major impact or dire enough so to warrant the consideration of these ideas.
My idea, which I am releasing into the public domain, would be to convert the rotational energy of the small planetary body into directed kinetic energy sufficient to "push" the body on a different orbital path. If done early enough (years? decades?) this small diversion could prevent the body from impacting the earth. The advantage to using my scheme would be that the spacecraft sent to the object could be reasonably small although it would require a mechanism for securely attaching a long (kilometers?) tether to the asteroid via cables or, in the case of a very fragmented body, a large net. The cable would be conducting and may even be self extending using static charges. Small robots would be used for both moving material up and down the cable as well as mining the body for material to be cast into space.
The main design consideration would be the length of the tether (or possibly tower), it must extend beyond the "geo"-sync distance defined by the rotational speed of the body and its gravitational attraction. For some objects no doubt this would require a tether to be impractically long, however recent probes have determined that many(?) bodies rotate fast enough for a tether to be of practical length. ("Practical length" is in reference to NASA experiments in LEO where tethers were extended or attempted to be extended distance of up to tens of kilometers). (Another major impediment would be if the body were tumbling, possibly in a chaotic fashion. I do not know if a tether/tower could be constructed in that scenario). The tether would have a few other important characteristics. It should allow for small robots to travel up and down its length by means of a gripping mechanism (preferably simultaneously on two "sides") and should be conducting. This would allow for the robots to both receive power for their "climb" and to generate power once they've passed the "geo"-sync height. The tether would be kept taught by means of a counterweight placed beyond the "geo"-sync height, presumably at the end of the tether.
The implementation of the system would possibly be as follows. A spacecraft would enter into orbit at the "geo"-sync location around the body. It would then lower the tether to the body while at the same time extending a tether in the opposite direction, keeping the spacecraft at the center of gravity. Once the tether has reached the surface, a robot(s) would climb down and then securely fasten the end. It, or other robot(s) would then breaking up pieces of
Here's a revolutionary idea: Throw more money at NASA than at the DOD.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
my high-interest bank account
Which bank do you use? High interest bank accounts anymore are those that are giving 1%. Many are less than 1% anymore. Or are you reading interest rates the way you read rulers and claim they say 10 inches.....
Of course they can have fun poisoning meetings by coming up with the correct solutions in the first five minutes and presenting them in such an irritating and condescending fashion that the rest of the group will reject them and then leave the meeting forcing the rest to struggle through a bunch of incorrect solutions until such time as they are forced to accept (quitely and with out acknowledgement) what they know to be the correct solutions (preferable over a period of many weeks and many more meetings, all hopefully without your attendance ;-)). There is no time when a sence of humour is not appropriate.
Besides it is all about focus, focus your resources in the correct direction and your goals will be achieved. Obviously the whole thing about exploring space is really only stuck upon one issue, gravity and overcoming that particular stumbling block should really be the current focus of activity, after all, understand gravity and the resources of this solar system will become available to you.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Invent a cheaper bed for sleeping. Those tempurpedics certified by the Space Foundation are ridiculously expensive... I was about to get one until I saw the price.
You're not wrong.
I work as a research scientist. I get ideas all the time, every day. Other people I work with mention mind blowing ideas, every day. We all have ideas, ideas are a good thing, but ideas are cheap.
Six months later, one year later, three years later and I read about "my idea" being done by someone.
I used to think I was deluding myself, but I'm forced to keep log books at work, and (cunning as a fox I decided to check a couple of episodes out and) lo and behold; I am not deluding myself.
Here's the kick. Every time I have an episode like this I think "if you were worth the money you are paid, you would have *actually got of your fat pampered arse* and done it."
The prizes and the plaudits go to the do'ers. Doing is hard. Doing is good. Protect your doers. Point at them and tell the ideas men "look : gooooood".
Mind you... easy to say....
The other thing is that I have seen a few true visionaries who have plugged away for years, garnering contempt and approbrium from all (sadly me too) before being proved fundamentally correct and suddenly becoming flavour of the month. The trick is to grow a culture of "do, make, prove, give" and yet make sure that you have a bit of a space for people to go deep and dig out the real gold.
--------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."