Slashdot Mirror
NASA Seeking Innovative Ideas from Public
Mike Peel writes "Science Blog is reporting that NASA is seeking proposals 'for creating and managing innovative activities, events, products, services, or other types of formal or informal education methods for the purpose of disseminating information nationally about NASA's projects and programs.'" Sadly I don't think simply providing them with a list of people you want shot into space counts.
"NASA is seeking proposals 'for creating and managing innovative activities, events, products, services, or other types of formal or informal education methods for the purpose of disseminating information nationally about NASA's projects and programs.'" Seriously, I have no idea what this sentence says.
Czech language for absolute beginners
"In exchange for a collaborator's investment to creatively distribute NASA information, the agency will consider negotiating brand placement, limited exclusivity and other opportunities as part of a strategic collaboration."
Does this mean we're gonna see big "Drink Coke!" advertisments next time we look through a telescope at the ISS? That would be some impressive brand placement...
Will program for karma.
Call your next spacecraft the Wii.
I'll never give up my tin-foil hat design!!!
Someone from NASA needs to post a question for Ask Slashdot to get some innovative ideas. I'm sure some of those ideas will be quite colorful.
putting up some kind of special signs - along the major roads, perhaps, or on buildings. Then you print some really _huge_ images to put on those sign things; some inspirational image, like the space shuttle and an astronaut against the earth seen from space. And then, to cap it off, print some short text, something kind of punchy and really easy to remember, on top. You know, something like "The Shuttle - Don't Leave Home Without It", or "Call NASA For a Good Time". Perhaps with an URL printed small so people can go find out more.
You know, I bet that if you paid a few magazines or newspapers enough, they'll be sure to agree to print the same images too. And maybe do the same for some television show - I bet _that_ will really make people sit up and take notice!
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Seriously. The shuttle program at this point in time is insane. We do not have the technology yet to make space travel cost-effective. Instead of pointlessly doing it wastefully now for no other purpose than habit, why not pour all that money into a program to develop new forms of propulsion and energy, and come back to spacefaring when we have a better solution?
,etc.!
It's not like sending humans into space serves any real purpose anyway. Robots can carry out virtually everything we need to do for FAR less payload cost. People often whine about the limitations of the robot missions compared to human missions, but these people have simply not thought through the cost-benefit analysis. Sure, a human mission payload can do more than the current robot misisons: the payload of the human missions is many many many times greater than the robot missions. If any of the Mars lander people could fill something the size of the shuttle with robot equipment, we'd be able to set up huge self-sustaining robot colonies on Mars easily. Instead, we want to send humans in what will then have to mostly be wasted space.
Look Mars, we bring you... poop! And urine! And lots and lots of empty space for our various gases! And tons of food! And energy for a return trip! And beds, chairs, tables, toilets
It's just nuts.
If I had such a mechanism I'm likely to want to employ it first in the commercial field - since any idea is going to get copied pretty soon after it first appears. Thus even with IP control over the concept, NASA is going to be way down my list. Double that because there's no prize money involved, only cost.
For instance, I might suggest allowing people to name newly discovered stars, nebula, galaxies, craters, etc. However I'm better off just doing it anyway and selling the certificates at $10 a shot.
Mind you, on the other hand it might be worthwhile keeping an eye on submissions in case there is something that comes out that you can use in more financially interesting ways.
Aww, I think Darl McBride deserves a one way trip to the moon... or the sun.
Make our lifes worthwhile. Disclose the information you keep about UFO-s, aliens and the alien technologies you've reversed engineed, you sneaky bastards.
And if all of that is just the product of some paranoid conspiracy theorists, oh well, just make it up and lie to us.
We'll love it.
Start working on things that average people (e.g. non-scientists) can get behind.
The shuttle program and space station may be incredibly valuable to the scientific community for research purposes, but there's nothing about it that captures the imaginations and emotions and concern of the general public. I hate to break it to NASA, but there's really nothing you can do to make average people excited about nerdy harcore scientific research.
That's the difference between today's NASA and the old JFK-era NASA.
You geek types out there may say, "but NASA isn't a popularity contest, it's a scientific endeavor". But you have to remember who funds NASA: ordinary taxpayers.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Nascar.
Most people are aware of many NASA space programs. Hardly anyone appears to be aware of NASA's aeronautics programs. You get the occasional show on the Discovery Channel but that's it. I liked the one about control an aircraft in three axes using thrust only (the project was inspired by the Sioux City DC-10 crash).
They should build one of those website thingys. They can put lots of descriptions of what they are doing on it and pictures even. I hear it costs next to nothing to let people download pictures, video, text, and all sorts of stuff.
With all those scientists working for them, I am sure that they can find a way to use ARPA NET to do this.
Why not contact the Jim Henson corporation to see about having Kermit and Gonzo teach a couple of classes to the new guys?
They could cover complex scientific concepts like "Near and Far", "Toward and Away", and maybe even "Counting to 10 in Metric".
Couldn't hurt...
Please, this is not a troll. I renember reading that back in the 70's, somebody got a bunch of companies together to try and buy an unused Atlas rocket from the government and form a private space program - NASA killed it. Do I even need to mention the cost and problems with the space shuttle, or the meter to feet conversion disaster of the mars mission, or the lenzing error on the hubble telescope. The simple truth is that by being there, they make it so that nobody else in private enterprise wants to act. For chrissake, why did a private millionaire space tourists need to go to Russia? Why did the X-prize happen without NASA at all? The writing has been on the wall for a long time, the future of space is here and it is not NASA.
Killing NASA will not kill the geniuses who work at NASA, all it will do is shut down the bureauocrats while the talent finds ways to be applied thru the rest of the private market.
Because the CIA/NSA/etc require a satellite-servicing capability and NASA is a wonderful distraction. NASA *is* a cold war agency.
Yes, but sending robots tootling around the solar system is frankly not very exciting, and the biggest payoff of all from spaceflight derives from the extent to which it captures the public imaginations.
Oh no... it's the future.
No, they don't even really need that. I would bet that the cost of a servicing mission and having the shuttle program to make it available far exceeds the cost of simply sending up another satelite via unmanned rocket as needed.
Well, if several years of reading sci-fi novels and watching sci-fi movies has taught me anything, YOU DON'T LET ROBOTS BECOME SELF-SUSTAINING! Cuz once they are, they get all kinds of crazy ideas about saving humanity from itself and decide to rule us for our own protection. Or, sometimes you'll get robots that have a persecution complex and decides that humanity needs to be obliterated because we are "imperfect," and thus a threat to their orderly existence.
Nope, if we let robots build colonies on Mars, it'll only be a short time until humanity is either subjegated, or annihilated.
When I worked there it was an amazing culture of self-absorbed, self-agrandizing, self-promoting bullshit artists, retired military, political appointees, and rednecks that has probably ever been assembled. It might have been funny if it weren't so painful.
Round-trip tickets to those who vote to continue funding space research :)
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...Reality Television Show.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
I'd glady give them a list of people I want shot.
It would be nice to see NASA expand there business.
Here's my proposal. Everyone on slashdot with a clue (see item 3) participates in an ISS Takedown. The International Space Station is what's wasting a lot of money, and it's also part of the road to further money-wasting projects like a manned trip to mars. How will the takedown work? I dunno, I was thinking lots of very big mirrors on sunny days, around the world, focused with the help of DIY semi-automated tools coordinated through the Internet, could maybe stress the cooling systems just enough to send it over the brink and require all the occupants to return home. Then it's just a matter of time. Is this feasible? I doubt it. Maybe prayer and waving dead chickens would help.
How does this achieve NASA's education objectives? It would be a huge story, not only because the ISS would be done with, but the entire program would have to be rebooted. They'd get coverage everywhere, and people would learn about their projects and programs.
see, my immediate rebuttal to your comment (all pulled from popular media of course) was - yes, it's far cheaper to send up replacement satellites for ones that fail, but you need shuttles to pull down birds that have stopped working entirely so they and their plutonium don't land in bad countries..- but DART solved that problem you can take them down by design!
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Or better, one way ticket for those who don't
NASA should send a "Highlights" DVD to every American citizen every year, right before Christmas. Which includes a free login to a NASA video site. And a summary of the ROI on NASA expenses, as well as its tiny percentage of the budget.
I've told that to every NASA and aerospace exec I've ever met. Now I'll use the webform, too.
--
make install -not war
I didn't truly appreciate how hard it is to get into orbit until I played with that freeware Orbiter game (heard about it on slashdot).
Granted, the geekiness of just flying spaceships around is not exactly compelling next to the current group of shoot 'em ups. The trick would be making something that was interesting and compelling. Get some good eye candy and the right balance of 'real' and 'fun'. Maybe there are some multiplayer possibilities.
Think of it as "today's astronauts" instead of "todays army".
You are SO right. Does anybody else just picture a shuttle trip to Mars as basically like a road-trip with some of your friends....and you bring as much crap as you can so you're all basically stuffed into the van.....and there's that guy who fidgets the whole time next to you driving you nuts?
And I mean, I hope those guys have video games to bring along. Must have shitty pings though.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Considering the problems with oil and personal transportation needs, how about building that Jetson's flying car we were all promised we would be driving in the 21st century.
Oh, and robot maids would be nice too...
I lost my sig...
...the "Sii"
Yeah but it beats losing entire shuttle crews.
Maybe they could create some form of educational material with a space theme. Teach kids to read about planets and show how to calculate ... oh no, forget it.
As long as the ratio does not change drastically, well never get into space for doing other stuff than some small experiments.
How? dunno, anti-grave fields, magnetic fields, catapults, whatever.
why not pour all that money into a program to develop new forms of propulsion and energy, and come back to spacefaring when we have a better solution?
... uhmm.. battle cruiser... or whatever.
That's what's been happening for the past, I don't know, 10 or 20 years? Magically though, good ol' shuttles always come on top of the "modern" solution as something that works.
Of course innovation is the future, but let's not just drop what we have working. An expensive working shuttle is better than non-existant non-working less expensive
All spacecraft should be thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my idea, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
I have an idea for overhauling all of NASA, let alone just implementing an oh-so-trendy blog:
How about firing the whole lot of politicians and PHBs and hire visionaries, pioneers, and engineers? Folks such as Burt Rutan, for example. While some would say he doesn't have the expertise to build a shuttle replacement, look at what he accomplished with minimal resources at his own company; he has designed quite a few high-performance near-stall proof aircraft (The Vari-EZ and derivatives), the Beech Starship (If I ever come into a lot of money I'd pay well over market value to own one, to keep Beech from destroying it. It's a gorgeous aircraft), several fighters, the Proteus, and of course SpaceShipOne. He bucks trends and doesn't accept status quo as the end-all, be all way of doing things. Heck, even the SpaceShipOne benefactor Paul Allen would be a great addition to NASA. And again, he does things efficiently. He'd be the ideal visionary to manage an organization such as NASA and to see that money is being spent to achieve results rather than to maintain high salaries for a select few PHBs and politicians, and spending a token amount of the allocated budget on money-pit pet projects like the ISS.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Yes, we do. What we don't have is political commitment for a government backed development (which some may argue is a Good Thing) nor sufficient venture capital available to the private sector to get off the ground floor (if you'll excuse the horrible pun).
Instead of pointlessly doing it wastefully now for no other purpose than habit,
Pointless? Hardly. The Shuttle is the only launch vehicle capable of completing ISS (International Space Station). Whether we're better off ditching the whole ISS/Shuttle program because it's wasteful is a separate, though related, argument.
why not pour all that money into a program to develop new forms of propulsion and energy, and come back to spacefaring when we have a better solution?
This really bears repeating: the viability of a successful space program -- public or private -- has nothing to do with technology; what we have now is totally adequate for the task and has been for at least the last 20 years.
The plea to "come back when..." is a specious bumper sticker argument that emerged in the early 1970's though it usually goes like "... when we've solved the problems here on earth!" as if the space program exists to "solve problems in space". The suggestion that we wait until we've developed "the right" technology betrays enormous ignorance.
As for doing science, an astronaut can stop, look, say "ooh, what an interesting rock!" then walk over, pick it up, and examine it closely with a Mark I eyeball in, what, 30 seconds? It takes days if not weeks for a Mars rover to do the same thing.
So answer me this, earthworm, what "new forms of propulsion and energy" should we wait for? Scramjets? Totally unsuitable. A large, lightweight tank filled with LOX (liquid oxygen) is a far superior solution than a heavy air breathing engine that carries a huge drag penalty. Better to get out of the atmosphere quickly and carry your own oxidizer. LOX is cheap, as is rocket fuel be it RP-1, liquid hydrogen, or whatever.
It's not like sending humans into space serves any real purpose anyway. Robots can carry out virtually everything we need to do for FAR less payload cost. People often whine about the limitations of the robot missions compared to human missions, but these people have simply not thought through the cost-benefit analysis.
As if you have done a thorough analysis? Right. So what benefit are you talking about? Science? Economic return by exploiting an extraterrestrial resource? Human colonization of the solar system?
Why would we build a colony of and, presumably, for robots on Mars? As for any sort of "easy" robotic mission to Mars, forget it. The robotic technology simply does not exist. It's likely, but by no means certain, that the cost of developing the robot technology would be at least as much as it would to develop a human mission. Why? Human beings are a well developed technology; the technology to send humans on long space voyages also exists -- because we've been doing it for over 40 years when we include the Shuttle program. Duh.
Geeks of Slashdot, I bring you the link to The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin. It's not the latest treatment on a manned Mars mission but it indicates that we've had sufficient technology to begin development of Mars mission at least as early as 1996 when the book was written. Goo
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
Was of Bruce Willis mentioning that all NASA does is "think shit up". But now they are asking the public.
Jonathanjk.com
Put the shuttles in museums, I'd pay for a tour.
Work with the Russians to contiune support of the ISS.
Pour all new research money into developing the technologies to build the space elevator. This is the only way in our reach that can make space cost effective. We'll need much longer carbon nanotubes, a good solution for climbing the cable, and a way to bring an appropriate anchor into orbit. Get to it guys I'm getting old fast and I want a ride once you've finnished.
-- QED
Killing manned exploration for a few decades would free billions we could use to learn about the places we wish to visit in the future.
The space race between the Soviets and the US was great for jumpstarting space exploration, but what humans do in space (other then personally experience it) can be automated.
We are getting away from manned combat aircraft because meat in the cockpit gets tired, makes mistakes, and needs life support. Losing people damages a program far more than losing hardware, because they have emotion-based value to the public.
Free the space prrogram, advance robotic technology, and keep the meat on Terra!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
OOH! OOH! Let's, like, send a rocket to the SUN!
Promote NASA via TV Commercials the highlighting archievements NASA has done. Promote US Space Camp to kids and adults. It is a great way to get more people interested into becoming an astronaut. Develop a business plan and start turning a serious multi-billion dollar profit. Use the billions of dollars from profits to continue research without fear of budget cuts from the Federal government.
\
"Of course innovation is the future, but let's not just drop what we have working. An expensive working shuttle is better than non-existant non-working less expensive ... uhmm.. battle cruiser... or whatever."
Yuo couldn't be more wrong. What we have is working... to no purpose. It's not better, it's poitless. Getting humans into space is INCREDIBLY costly. In addition, at this point in our history, it serves no real purpose.
Why not work on better solutions to getting into space so that when we do come up with a reason to go, it won't be so ridiculously wasteful and take away from all the other things we have to work on?
Whatever happened to the good old days when people conspired about all of the secret technologies that the U.S. Government has in store? It's kind of pathetic to think that the private sector is making more innovations than the most powerful government in the world. I must say I've expected more out of NASA.
Slash-for-Thought
"Pointless? Hardly. The Shuttle is the only launch vehicle capable of completing ISS (International Space Station). Whether we're better off ditching the whole ISS/Shuttle program because it's wasteful is a separate, though related, argument."
So, we must have the shuttle because we need the ISS. Why do we need the ISS. Well hey, if we didn't have it, the shuttle wouldn't have anywhere fun to go!
That is just so tragically insane I hardly even know what to say.
"This really bears repeating: the viability of a successful space program -- public or private -- has nothing to do with technology; what we have now is totally adequate for the task and has been for at least the last 20 years."
It has everything to do with technology. Yes, what we have is adequate to get into space, but at an ENORMOUS COST that simply does not justify itself in any way shape or form.
"As for doing science, an astronaut can stop, look, say "ooh, what an interesting rock!" then walk over, pick it up, and examine it closely with a Mark I eyeball in, what, 30 seconds? It takes days if not weeks for a Mars rover to do the same thing."
Did I not already cover this argument? Robot missions are done for a tiny tiny fraction of the payload and cost of human missions. They have to conserve and go slow precisely because they are not given the funding, resources, or payload size that the human missions are. And several different sorts of robot eyes are a heck of a lot better than human eyes.
You still have yet to make any case whatsoever that sending meatbags into space has any point to justify the incredible expense. Right now, real science prorgams are being canceled left and right so that this nearly purely masturbatory enterprise of putting humans back on the moon can go forward.
For starters, let us consider the structure of time...
Come on, shutting down NASA to let private companies take over will probably bring benefits in terms of human space flight, commercial science in weightlessness to produce, say, new synthetics,... and space tourism.
But it would kill the thing that - for me - is the biggest archivement of NASA: space science. Forget probes to the solar system, cosmology using satellites or the origins program, because that doesn't produce money. If comanies would exist for the benefit of all, you'd be right. But they aren't, they exist primarily for making money. That's why we need NASA.
Everytime you kill a kitten, god masturbates.
You want some good PR for your program? How trying something different and new, like a base on the moon. People got behind the moon landing because it was challenging and daring. While yet another satelite or deep space probe is of considerable economic or scientific value, it is lacking when it comes to capturing the public imagination. A space staion with hydroponics farms and a big rotating wheel for artificial gravity, is something that will get folks excited, figure out a way to have a visitor's center and it could even be a money maker. Oh get rid of your 1976 station wagon we call the shuttle, it's getting old and dangerous.
We are all just people.
According to the cia world factbook that's "298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)"
Now, there's the cost of dvd cases, cover, inlay, dvd printing and mastering and I presume you'll want a covering letter from the director of nasa to say all about how great things are, though that could be part of the dvd inlay ( yeah! efficiency rocks!).
Now, even if it cost the completely unrealistic price of $1 per dvd (lets not forget distribution as well) that's a meagre sum of $298,444,215.
Pretty good going for a few minutes to post on slashdot, have you considered a career at NASA?
Killing manned exploration for a few decades would free billions
Unfortunately it would also kill public support and those billions would evaporate. Joe Sixpack gets far more excited about a man on the moon than he does about some radio telescope images, the millions of joe sixpack's out there have significant influence over the NASA budget. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is the current situation.
We are all just people.
Yes, but I would pie my Frank in the face just as he steps of the ladder onto the surface of Mars. It would cost million of dollars to give a robot that capability, but I'd throw it in for free.
NASA needs a brand new image and to reinvent themselves. Constantly hiring soft spoken people who are about as engaging as watching paint dry is just one of many many many many problems. They need to become sexy again. How? mabie, something realy cool that goes with the whole anti-something buzzword of the month would help. GEOSAT stuff- that "could" monitor for angery people ("terrasts"). That'd get funding (untill the intern is toss out and I say: good ridance). Sexy computer programs. Cute girls. Hot guys. Stuff that makes science something hot. Showing off prototype stuff, pandering helps some. They need Apple and or Microsoft style PR.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
So basically, like the parent, you're saying concentrating on space flight is useless right now.
1) Anti-gravity
2) Faster than light travel
Come on, we don't really live in the Slow Zone do we?
NASA should televise the launch of every mission while playing "Right into the Danger Zone!" The public will get behind that. Puts it in terms they can understand.
Robots ARE exciting. People love robots, now more than ever. Witness RoboSapien, the return of the Transformers, BattleBots or whatever on the TV, you know?
I feel most people are just as excited about sending out a robot as a person.
I think the problem is this -- people are apathetic and jaded. I almost didn't care enough to respond to your post.
well if Gary McKinnon can get in your system after smoking a lot of cannabis at the time
i'd say they need to hire some new I.T. staff
What's not getting mentioned in this light-hearted article, or the commentary, is the disastrous 2007 NASA budget. The idiotic "Vision for Space Exploration" coming out of the White House has made honest defenders of NASA's science initiative look like fools for declaring that science would not be cut. Well, it wasn't cut, it was eviscerated.
why not pour all that money into a program to develop new forms of propulsion and energy, and come back to spacefaring when we have a better solution?
The problem is not that we don't have the means of propulsion to put things in space, although better means would of course be welcome. The problem is that the way we've put them together is flawed and inflexible.
It's not like sending humans into space serves any real purpose anyway. Robots can carry out virtually everything we need to do for FAR less payload cost.
I happen to agree with you. I think robotics is a better way to advance both basic science and space technology. Furthermore robotic mission failures do not preclude later manned missions, but the reverse is not the case. I don't think manned missions are useless; although I think that moving a manned expedition up higher on the priorities list may actually delay the day a human steps out on Mars.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
When I hear/see that word, I think "Incoming!! Duck!!"
What have we done to English?! Another fine word ruined.
Let's build a star...and I mean a big star...that will produce a...a laser beam...and I mean a BIG BEAM...let's call it... The Death Star(TM)...and that way we can plast teRRist planets to dust...I'll be in charge of the project...my name is Darth Vader...I have a cool lightsaber too...wanna see????
Darth Vader
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
It has everything to do with technology. Yes, what we have is adequate to get into space, but at an ENORMOUS COST that simply does not justify itself in any way shape or form.
I'm curious: What cost would you consider acceptable? Would $35 million for a SpaceX Falcon 9 plus another few million for a Dragon capsule carrying 7 people be acceptable?
Which means cheap spaceflight, which means high volume and mass production, which means private companies. I don't really care much about space science because that'll be much cheaper and easier when folk like me can afford to get into space.
So... Kill NASA.
Deleted
>what "new forms of propulsion and energy" should we wait for?
We could be much better off with laser launchers and second-generation NERVA designs. Once to orbit, all sorts of possibilities open up if you have a working model of the high-thrust ion drive from Dr. Roger Walker's team.
I am strictly libertarian. However, IMO NASA should've NEVER seperated from the USAF/DoD.
The DoD has a purpose: defense. NASA doesn't really have a purpose.
Libertas in infinitum
If you want to capture the public's imagination, fake some manned missions on a sound stage for 100 million or so. Then spend the real money on real science.
The "capturing the public's imagination" argument is bullshit, because you end up spending all of your budget to achieve this goal, and before you know it, the public's imagination has been captured by something else, like MySpace or American Idol. Any attention that a manned mission to mars will get will be extremely short lived. The costs far exceed the benefits.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
We need to remove more famine from Earth before we go on more luxury/bragging cruises to other planets.
I suppose if we found a hidden colony of exiles or prisoners JUST below the US in terms of power, we humans would be made targets because assholes want to play Masters of the Universe.
We have more important missions down here, like bolstering education, feeding people, fighting AIDS and HIV, stabilizing regimes even if we don't LIKE them, fixing our terrestrial foreign policy, ridding offices of corrupt, dangerous, myopic, evil, and unctuous people.
If we have $10 BILLION to GIVE to NASA, we should tell them, "You need to take another 5-year break. We're diverting the money to CIVIL applications. COMMUNITY applications. HOMELESSNESS reduction programs."
Stupid-ass humans. Priorities: Conquest, subsumation, power projection, economic exploitation, political control, techno-braggery... above almost all else...
Personally, I hope nature keeps on setting us back until we PROVE, PROVE we deserve to get past the moon. Right now, in my uncorrupted observation, NOOOOO country on this planet deserves, has any right, or ought to be allowed "out there". Humans are still TOO DANGEROUS!
NASA and government should concentrate on Terra Firma, near-Earth orbit research, and stop wasting TRILLIONS on pet projects we DON'T YET **NEED***.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Right now, real science prorgams are being canceled left and right so that this nearly purely masturbatory enterprise of putting humans back on the moon can go forward.
I think you've hit it on the head. Manned space flight is a masturbatory exercise. It fuels space geeks fantasies. If other countries want to do it for their national prestige, fine. Hell, let's help them. Maybe even get one of our astronauts on board in exchange for helping. But we need to spend our money wisely, and that means on missions that give us the most scientific bang for the buck.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
If you want to promote science and technology, give us EASY access to it.
Grab a live-CD image that's for engineering applications, with CAD, CAM, and PCB software on it, and add on the blueprints that NASA has from decades of space travel. I'd live to see teh blueprints from the Appollo program. There should be clear explanations of what every file is.
Andy Out!
Here's some guys and gals who may have an idea or two for ya, NASA.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
and come back to spacefaring when we have a better solution?
There's the rub. First, once you put NASA on hiatus, a major part of the incentive for new engineers to enter the field is lost; you will soon drop the talent pool substantially. Second, if NASA goes away, it will be much harder (both from a logistics viewpoint and from a public relations viewpoint) to bring it back. There are lots of people now who say that NASA is a waste of money to maintain. Stopping it then restarting it is not only expensive, but those same people would be able to point out how we are getting along without it just fine.
Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
Wrong. They have to conserve fuel because there's no way to send them more. They go slowly because they have to wait for their data to reach Earth. Then, the data has to be evaluated, decisions made as to what to do next, the new instructions programmed and sent back. All this takes time because a robot can't react to something its designers didn't expect and exploration is nothing more than looking for the unexpected. One human can do more exploration than a fleet of robots simply because the human has initiative and the ability to change its own plans as needed without waiting for instructions.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Yuo couldn't be more wrong. What we have is working... to no purpose. It's not better, it's poitless.
I'll hate to ask you to reconsider your opinion, sir. Because NASA TV has provided me and my peers with endless hours of fun, including drinking cola in space (wobble, wobble, wobble!), eating in space (squirting food from a tube! yea!) and other fun acts I'd never see otherwise.
Long live NASA!
And several different sorts of robot eyes are a heck of a lot better than human eyes.
Ok. Like what? Or, more specifically, what can a robot do that a human could not do with the right equipment? And better yet, with a robotic explorer, that equipment has to be kept on hand at all times and can only be used in a very limited fashion. With a human, it can be stuffed in a closet and brought out as needed and adapted and adjusted on the fly.
Unmanned missions are cheaper because you can't do shit with them. If your entire goal was to take pictures from a single location and feed a few small surface rocks into a strictly predefined set of testing equipment, then you might have a case. But basically every other type of mission that would be merely expensive for a human could simply not be done by robot, for any amount.
Dyolf Knip
If memory serves me, Richard Nixon chose the shuttle design in 1973. The best proposal was a ram jet that could take off and land at any conventional airport. Instead he went with the second choice which involved the main tank and boosters, thousands of workers and the gargantuan Apollo-leftovers infrastructure. I can only imagine his reasoning.
how easy for closeminded simpletons to mod this guy off topic... you can't be any better than his rant... pitiful...
So you're telling me that there's something wrong with masturbation? Right here on slashdot of all places?
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
I'd rather see some money spent on space science than the legions of shit sack welfare sponges and illegal aliens. Exterminae all thse fuckers to save some real money.
Nothing wrong with it.
But why spend billions of dollars each year for manned space flight jack off material when pr0n on the internet is free? Maybe there isn't enough* star trek cosplay pr0n out there.
*I've not really searched, so I'm not even sure that it exists, but I'd be surprised if there was none.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
You read my mind :)
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
1. Start a NASA or Astronomy cable channel. If there's enough people watching a golf channel, then there can be a NASA channel. :)
2. ???
3. Profit!
Noticed this bit in TFA
and I'm really sorry that such a list - so easy to make - will not be enough.I would have listed Tony Blair and George W. Bush in a heartbeat. They could just sit up there and use the Hubble telescope to count their accumulation of money. They would be occupied for eons, leaving someone else the time to clean up the mess.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
1) Invent much faster form of propulsion than that currently commonly in use, which also does not involve oil/fossil fuel.
2) Design spacecraft that has some reasonable assurance of not randomly exploding in midair.
3) Do not adhere purely to the advice/perspectives/belief systems of "mainstream" scientists when attempting to solve the above, as solutions to above problems do exist, but mainstream scientists have vested interests in making sure you don't find them, because if you start using said solutions, the rest of us here on Earth will too, and then the oil companies will lose.
4) Do not attempt to go beyond Earth orbit again until 1, 2, and 3 have been followed.
"Sadly I don't think simply providing them with a list of people you want shot into space counts."
I was reading the above sentence and stopped in shock after having read "shot", not continuing to read the last three words anymore. I instantly reread the title to see if we were indeed talking about NASA and not about the NSA, that other organization situated at a very small Levenshtein distance from "NASA".
"Science Blog is reporting that NASA is seeking proposals 'for creating and managing innovative activities, events, products, services, or other types of formal or informal education methods..."
Three Words: Monkeys in Spacesuits.
Not only will this capture the collective heart of America, but it can be funded by offering to conduct a typical pork-barrel experiment that government-funded programs normally tend to be. How about "Studying the effect of orbiting the Earth on the accuracy of simians flinging crap."
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
Question: What did President Kennedy do when he got into office?
Answer: He did what he could to alleviate the suffering of others, AND gave the nation a goal which would drive it forward in all areas, carrying along those who could not help themselves, giving us all a greater understanding of, and a stronger footing in, our world.
Famine, dear sir, is a political problem: the world produces MORE food as a whole than the entire human population needs in a year - but distribution is constantly being blocked in all directions, by all kinds of circumstances. Throwing money at political problems doesn't solve them, or even really change their state.
Disease is a social problem as much as it is a simple fact of life. Throwing money can help social problems, but if that money isn't oriented toward making people believe in each other, help each other, and motivate each other, then it's wasted.
If someone else is paying for the vanity project, any amount is acceptable.
Robots can't breed.
If your goal is human colonization, then robots are mere tools to extend presence.
Shuttle, ISS, etc will not open the solar system. Fighting over those systems (and "science") is a sideshow. It is people squabbling over a couple of rowboats, compared to the fleets that will need building. Arguing over a very small pie. NASA is not going to open the Solar System up, that can only be done by individuals and companies making the decision to go there and stay.
There is money to be made on passenger spaceflight, and new systems becoming available. The future of spaceflight hasn't been brighter in decades, and it looks like a sustainable industry is developing.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
...by sending up the following:
1. "Average Joe", blue collar worker.
2. Inanimate Carbon Rod.
Worst. Signature. Ever.
NASA should start process of ending the players carrier and moving into a carrier of a couch. Current monolithic structure needs to be "modularised" for interworking with other private and government parties interested in activities in or about outer space. Today there is a lot of interested and rich investors eager to get into space business. NASA should become something like space businesses launchpad - providing education (=SPAACE... ACADEMY!= - Navigation, Space Vessel Design and Manufacturing, Structural Engineering in Outer Space, Space Mission Management... ), expertise (design consulting) and independent testing of "spaceworthiness" of designs and procedures (sort of UL for outer space). It should devise distributed cooperating system, a network, of orbital and interplanetary flight control. In short, NASA should move on up the ladder and think bigger and further then their present activites, with accent of coordinating and supporting the others and it doesn't need to do it for free, either. Perhaps not all its expenses would be covered with income that it could realize this way, but OTOH, this plan involves abstaining from actual, most expensive, practical, activities. Present part of NASA that did actual manufacturing & assembly & launching should be "outsourced", privatised, sold to investors (but key experts should be kept in agency, as consultants and lecturers) and more such enterprises should be allowed to be founded, with hired help from new, reformed NASA.
A moderated online Wiki would work wonderfully.
"I'm feeling very shpongled. Smashed, mashed, completely geshtopenflapped."
The parent post should be rated funny, not informative. A simple argument desolves the foundation of the parent's thesis; "Are resources cheaper today than yesterday?" This planet, and its resources are fixed quanities; And they grow smaller everyday. There is a cost for this shrikage, waiting around does not reduce this cost.
Dear NASA,
Try:
Achieve these and you won't need clever tricks to get people interested in your projects.
Sincerely,
The Public.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
(..except that no novel publicity approaches on boring stuff will make it les boring). Actually, the problem is that only the mundane stuff done at/by NASA gets publicity. Woah, a rocket launch, woah, a space station, woah, people floating at zero-g. I think we've been seen those pictures 40 years ago. The difference is, 40 years ago they were cool, ano noone has woken up to the fact that they are not cool anymore. How about some publicity on new propultion concept research (done at/by NASA), or actually doing something that has a WOPMPF? Like a mass-driver slasha catapult slash alternative to rockets?
If you read the NAIS business opportunity (link), then you will see that they are not asking for public ideas, but for corporate sponsors.
..."
..."
"... seeks one or more unfunded collaborations
"... NASA will consider negotiating brand placement, limited exclusivity (defined above) and other opportunities
They want Nike to do their work for them in exchange for the swoosh being used in the educational materials generated or something. You would have to be interested in marketing to school kids to make this work for you. But that smacks of bringing ads into the classroom, which is a bad thing IMHO.
I'd rather see them sell ads like NASCAR, get corporate sponsors for painting logos on rockets or the shuttle. That would at least be honest advertising. Marketing to kids through education sounds like a deceptive practice.