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.
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...)
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.
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.
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.
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.