Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States

NASA Prize Competition Solicits Ideas and Partners 93

Posted by michael from the speak-now-or-forever-stay-on-earth dept.
colonist writes "NASA's prize competition program, Centennial Challenges, is asking for proposals and partner organizations. NASA plans four categories: Flagship Challenges (space missions), Keystone Challenges (technologies), Alliance Challenges (run by partner organizations) and Quest Challenges (students and other groups). You can also submit ideas for prizes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Prize Competition Solicits Ideas and Partners More

NASA Prize Competition Solicits Ideas and Partners

Comments Filter:

  • Two birds - one stone (Score:5, Funny)

    by shubert1966 ( 739403 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:35PM (#10743421) Journal
    As a challenge, I'd like to submit that myself and a partner be the first couple to conceive a child in space. If this is Sigourney Weaver - then that can be my prize. Like two peas in a pod. [entry-magazin.de]

    • As a challenge, I'd like to submit that myself and a partner be the first couple to conceive a child in space. If this is Sigourney Weaver - then that can be my prize.

      In case Sigourney isn't available, the second prize is a good hard shag in zero-gee in the Alien's station wagon. Still interested?
    • I hope all of these prizes like this and the X-Prize will help hurtle technology forward so we can all get into space.

  • In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:38PM (#10743431)
    "Hey look folks, we're in a bit of a fix: we have a $15.5bn/yr budget, but we're stuck with this stupid space station, and we're also afraid to do anything in case we screw up again, and we're a big fat brain-dead administration. So, like, can we give one of you a teensy little big of our big pile of cash to give us some ideas? Thank you in advance!"

    I say it's pathetic...

    • Re:In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Japong ( 793982 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:50PM (#10743483)

      It's better than the alternative, which is the increasing stagnation of the national space program. I'd really like to see a manned mission to mars in my lifetime or something of similar importance... and if that requires giving some (or lots) of money to the general population to a) renew interest in space exploration, and b) get some potentially helpful outside ideas, then why not?

      Maybe we really will learn if anys can sort tiny screws in space

    • Why should they not ask for ideas. Many here are always posting that private enterprise would thrash NASA, and that if Burt Rutan was in charge we would already have interstellar drives and be shagging tripple breasted alien babes. Lets hear some of the fantastically reveloutionary ideas that are supposed to be out there.

    • Re:In other words... (Score:5, Informative)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @07:10PM (#10743609)
      Its somewhat worse than that:

      "to identify potential co-sponsor organizations interested in contributing cash toward one or more prize competitions,"

      Before I start a rant let me preface it with an interesting URL, Kelly Johnson's rules [jamesshuggins.com]. If you don't know Kelly Johnson he was the genius behind Lockheed's original skunworks and built two airplanes which are still engineering marvels and he did both in months not decades. His rules are the antithesis of all things that are now NASA's manned space program. In particular:

      Rule No. 3

      "The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10 percent to 25 percent compared to the so-called normal systems)."

      Now back to the Centennial prizes. NASA is apparently looking for organizations outside of NASA to give NASA money to help fund part of the prizes. The irony of an agency that wastes billions a year trying to suck cash out of little innovative organizations like the Ansari X prize is just to much.

      Seems to me like they are trying to embrace, extend and extinguish the X prize concept much like another monopoly we know.

      They make way to many references to "partners" in this program. Forming partnerships is how another monopoly we know destroys competitors.

      NASA is obviously nervous about the X prize because its the first thing exciting to happen in manned space flight in a couple decades. Sure it was just a high altitude flight but they did it on a tiny budget and a fast schedule and it was entirely private and NASA was totally cut out of it and they have massive egg on their face.

      NASA's effort would be a great program if they would take some of the billions they are now wasting on the Space Shuttle and ISS and put them in to either no string grants or real winner take all prizes.

      If you are an organization that either wants to sponsor prizes or win them, partnering with NASA is about the last thing you want to do. In particular I'm guessing any work you do will end up belonging to NASA and not to your organization. If you want to get sucked up in to a money devouring bureaucracy that doesn't do anything innovative in manned space flight anymore, and now needs someone to do it for them but have it still look like NASA needs to be in the loop, then go right ahead. If you want to just feed at the NASA trough then this may also be a good route to go.

      I'll reitereate what I've said before here. Giving Burt Rutan a billion or two in no strings grants to go to the next stage and build a vehicle that could fly to the ISS on a weekly basis would be priceless. Maybe he couldn't do it but manned space flight needs a new organization like Kelly Johnsons old skunkworks. You need a talented, seat of the pants, engineer who can put together a small, fast, agile team of the best of the best who are there to succeed and if they do get rewarded for it in a big way. Burt Rutan is the closest match I've seen to Kelly Johnson.
      • If you think about it, most procedures and working guidelines in development (of software, planes, whatever) seem to be designed to eliminate the human aspect of design - which is, "you need excellent designers to make an excellent product". Instead most procedures seem to focus on writing everything down in the vague hope of being able to reproduce earlier work, even though that work may have been of questionable quality. Kelly Johnsons rules, by comparison, attempt to limit the paperwork and instead focus
        • " (it is more like a redesign of the X15 plane)"

          Well it is a really innovative advance over the X-15, especially the feather(see below).

          Many of the veterans of the X-15 like Scott Crossfield are convinced to this day that if the U.S. had stayed on the X-15 track we might be flying in to space today almost as routinely as a commercial airliner. It might not be the way to go for heavy cargo lifting but it seems a lot better way to fly people and small cargo to a space station and if you can fly small cargo
      • "Giving Burt Rutan a billion or two in no strings grants to go to the next stage and build a vehicle that could fly to the ISS on a weekly basis would be priceless."
        Well while I would tend to agree... It would be a disaster. Rutan if smart would not take the money. Why?
        No strings attached yea right. The news people, the other side, and anyone with an ax to grind would be screaming about fiscal irrsponsability. If Rutan made too much profit off the thing they would scream bloody murder that he was ripping of
        • Well maybe he wont have to. 60 minutes had a long piece on Rutan tonight. I didn't realize it but he is getting $120 million from Virgin Galactic. If, by some miracle, it turns out profitable maybe they can raise money on their own.

          Rutan looks to be a rabid free market type and hater of all things big government, they had footage of him standing next to Reagan praising him for being anti regulation. So I doubt he would take the money if it was offered. He really does completely despise NASA.

          "The news
    • Hey now, I'll take 15 billion for aerospace research instead of a day in Iraq any day of the week.

  • X-4000 (Score:5, Informative)

    by uncoveror ( 570620 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:50PM (#10743486) Homepage
    Last time they had a competition like this, the winning submission was the X-4000 Launch Aparatus [uncoveror.com], which is yet to be successfully used.
    • that people would mod the parent as insightful instead of funny.

      Moderators don't bother to think anymore.
      Except for the ones who want to mod me up.

    • In the eighties, the Air Force planned what was basically a giant crossbow to launch disk-shaped payload vehicles carrying satellites.
      just stunning. I now know that about half the 12.2 billion/year goes to crak to think of these dumbass ideas. What is next, a 500 meter musket rifle?? eventually we will get into massive uzi's in order to get into orbit i guess...

  • have your cake and eat it too (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kryonD ( 163018 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:52PM (#10743499) Homepage Journal
    I can't help but notice the US continuing to press forward in experimental technology that will bring the world closer together, yet we are still in denial about the resulting effects of this.

    The internet propelled the world rapidly into an era of global trade and communication and yet the US and most of the general populous continue to legislate and complain as though communication and trade were still a function that required a 12 hour flight, or 2 week ship ride to facilitate. Everyone is whining about globalization, WTO etc.., and then turning around and complaining when their job got outsourced to someone who would take a lower wage and not bitch about union rules and overtime. Once upon a time, this country was built on the backs of people who beleived in an honest days work to feed their families and getting the job done was a matter of personal pride, not of billable hours.

    As industries continue to push the boundaries in space technologies, the day imminent where a business man will be able to fly to London, New York, Tokyo, Moscowand back home in the space of a single day. What will happen then when goods can cross the planet in a few hours. If you think illegal trade and outsourcing are bad now, wait another 5 years. I really think the US should start facing reality that it is no longer feasable to hold an economy so far above the rest of the world. Our current rhetoric about trying to secure our borders sounds alarmingly like the same thought that drove China from the World's formost superpower in science, technology, and economy in the 14th century into poverty and isolation.

    All this new stuff from NASA sounds great, and I am a huge proponent of space travel. But the moment someone figures out how to do LEO flights, we are going to find that our $7 Trillion deficit and isolationist fantasy that we can still have everything "made in the USA" is going to drive us back into a 3rd world squallor.
    • Are you suggesting that since people are "still in denial about the resulting effects", the research should stop? People will eventually realize what the work has done, but it must be completed before it can have any effects.

      - dshaw
    • While I agree with you, my guess is that the freaks who run things around here will simply use these new NASA funded technologies and LEO flights to deliver a bunch of soldiers to some resource rich third world gummint for plunder aka "liberation and democracy".

      Also, the $7trillion debt is not of as great a consequence as one might think. As long as you meet the interest payments, you're good to go. Once you can't meet the payments, just inflate the currency so you pay back a 2004 debt with worthless 2010

  • 5 Challenge ideas (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 1337 Twinkie ( 795608 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:54PM (#10743511) Homepage Journal
    1) First privately funded orbital flight
    2)First privately funded lunar rover
    3)Compettions to design space habitats
    4)Zero-G agriculture projects
    5)Contest for student-designed zero-g experiment (to be put on space station and run for period of time)
  • Maybe, all of these prizes like this and the X-Prize will help hurtle technology forward so we can all get into space.
  • The best idea that I can come up with would be to shut NASA down. If they were gone it would increase the incentive for more companies to get involved in various space projects.

    I will not submit this to them though. I don't think they would choose it.

    • Re:Radical thinking (Score:5, Insightful)

      by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @07:15PM (#10743639)
      So, you'd want to shut down one of the few things in the American government that does anythign useful for humanity to provide an incentive for private companies to explore space? that'll work as well as deregulating electricity did with California electricity prices. Somethigns are too expensive and have too few chance of a decent return for private companies to go into. Space is one of them.
      • that'll work as well as deregulating electricity did with California electricity prices.

        CA didn't deregulate electricity prices. They just moved the regulations. Under the system they set up, electricity generators could charge whatever they liked, but electricity distributors could only charge the consumer a fixed price. This broke the supply-demand feedback mechanism, and caused the distributors to get squeezed into bankruptcy.

        Somethigns are too expensive and have too few chance of a decent return for p

        • CA didn't deregulate electricity prices. They just moved the regulations. Under the system they set up, electricity generators could charge whatever they liked, but electricity distributors could only charge the consumer a fixed price. This broke the supply-demand feedback mechanism, and caused the distributors to get squeezed into bankruptcy.

          Yes, and you'd expect the US gov to just disband Nasa? no they'd "privatize" it. Even so you can't truly privatize a utility. It's exstemely hard and generally they

  • NASA embarased by success of X-Prize/Rutan? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:58PM (#10743536)
    I read the fine article, and came to the conclusion that some NASA higher-ups had to be embarassed by the success of the X-Prize competition and Rutan's SpaceShipOne. So, as a result, they are starting up their own competing competition. It even imitates that Anasari "next" X-Prize competition in the way it is set up. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or something like that.

    This should be humorous. I've spent some time reading NASA's publically accessible documents, and they are without a doubt the most overwritten documents I have ever seen. As long as the people involved in the program don't have to maintain NASA-level paper documentation, it might work. I have this sneaking suspicion that the managers NASA attaches to this program might end up killing it by force of documentation.

    I am just an
    -Obnoxious Twit.

  • Here's my idea (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @07:06PM (#10743574)
    We develop a spaceship that doesn't explode when it goes up.
    Brilliant!
    AND (here's the tricky bit) it also doesn't explode when it comes down.
    Brilliant!

  • Good idea. Now generalize. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @07:11PM (#10743615) Homepage
    The X-prize was a very cool idea. Offer cold, hard cash for people who successfully do something new and interesting.

    Now NASA is looking for other suggestions for prizes that would have the same effect in other branches of space exploration. More prizes along the same lines could provide incentives for a wide variety of inventions.

    So, here's a proposal. Some body (I'm thinking governmental, because I'm an evil liberal) would accept proposals for prizes, accept donations towards specific prizes from governments and private entities. The prizes can be rewards for any sort of accomplishment. For example, if somebody wants to spur leukemia research, they would draw up a request for a new treatment that reduced the mortality rate by 50%. Then they could front as much money towards the prize as they like, and others would be free to donate as well.

    The prize organization itself would be in charge of determining whether the requirements of a prize had been fulfilled, and of taking care of the money in the meantime. If a prize went well beyond its expected lifetime--say a prize was offered for something truly impossible, like psychic teleportation, and has simply been sitting around for a decade or two--then the money could be funneled into other prizes.

    Other prizes that might be offered:

    *An "effectively secure" electronic voting system.
    *A carbon nanotube with a strength of 150 GPa.
    *A lightbulb that uses 1% of the energy of incandescent bulbs.
    *A good Linux driver for WiFi card X.
    *Gweneth Paltrow's phone number. Okay, maybe not.
    *A way to make soy taste like meat, without putting it through an animal first.

    I figure there should also be some sort of moderation system apart from money, so that good ideas that lack funding can get the attention needed to attract said funding.

    Any improvements to be made, or fundamental problems with the idea?
    • I found an interesting website that acts kind of like what I had in mind. WhyNot? [whynot.net]
    • 'Cold Hard Cash' wasn't exactly the motivation behind the winners of the X-Prize. Im not sure of the numbers but i think they spent 200M building a spacecraft to win them 10M. These people are in it for the advancement of their science (or their name in a history book or on a plaque, or the commerical success - enter Ricahrd Branson).
    • The big problem with such prize systems, as I see it, is when they give prizes for something that in and of itself has a low intrinsic monetary or other value. This means that there is little or no motivation other than the prize, and thus effort made towards it is completely wasted if or when someone else gets there first. This is often compounded by unrealistically small amounts of prize money for the amount of time, resources and risk involved.

      Of course, you can collaborate with others, but then the p

    • Re:Good idea. Now generalize. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GileadGreene ( 539584 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @09:11PM (#10744218) Homepage
      Funny thing is, we already have a system almost exactly like what you describe. In fact we've had it for a long time. The difference is that it's a distributed system, instead of being under the central control of some single body. And we leave it to individual donors to decide which prize projects to support, and also to decide when they feel that "the prize" has been won. This has the dual advantage of significantly reducing the bureaucratic overhead that is required, while at the same time allowing prize projects that prove far more useful than the original prize donors anticipated to reap larger rewards than they could under the centralzied prize system.

      We call this distributed prize system "the market". You may have heard of it.

      • Is this that thing they call "sarcasm"? I've been on Slashdot so long, it's hard to tell.

        Now, despite the fact that the X-prize wasn't nearly enough to cover the research and development costs of even one of the teams, it spurred competition by creating interest and by setting a concrete goal.

        You're insistent that "the market" functions better than any prize system could. And yet the X-prize was offered, and suddenly research started moving forward. Why hadn't the market impelled people to work wit
        • Actually, I consider an expression of "the market". Admittedly, most of the transactions that take place in the market are for financial profit and short-term gain. But not all of them are, and the X-prize is a prime example of one that isn't. Not soem government-run mega-program, but a bunch of people who got together and said "Hey! There's something we want (commercial spaceflight in this case) that doesn't exist yet, but that we want to see. So we'll offer some money and prestige to the first team that c
          • I'm not proposing slapping a prize on every conceivable idea, just the ones that people/corporations/other government agencies consider worthwhile to fund. I just think it's an interesting idea to have some way of streamlining the process of offering the prizes. It doesn't matter much to me whether it occurs under a new government agency, an extension of an old one like the NIH, or a private foundation. I think I may have gotten things off on the wrong foot by getting the Feds involved.

            Run properly,
            • I know that a properly managed government agency is a huge stretch of the imagination for many people, and not without reason.

              Especially when you've actually worked with government agency, and seen the "management" first-hand. :P

              I do agree that the prize concept is a worthwhile one. But I have a hard time seeing it work in a federal context. Based on my own experience , there's a high likelihood of the prize competitions coming with multiple layers of rules and requirements, and most likely an innate bias

        • You're insistent that "the market" functions better than any prize system could. And yet the X-prize was offered, and suddenly research started moving forward. Why hadn't the market impelled people to work with that sort of single-mindedness before then?

          Because of a short-sighted treaty that prevents commercial exploitation of space. The market was essentially eliminated from play.

          If the US pulled out of that treaty, there'd be no need for the X-prize.
      • Pure systems don't work. Pure free market systems would inhibit innovation because many innovatiosn come from things with little or no intrinsic monetary value. Innovation is also expensive, it's economically more favorable to get a monopoly and never ever change your product again.

        You always have to have a mix of private and public industry. Public like Universities and private like Monsanto. One to research new ideas, and one to refine old ones.

    • So, here's a proposal. Some body (I'm thinking governmental, because I'm an evil liberal) would accept proposals for prizes, accept donations towards specific prizes from governments and private entities. The prizes can be rewards for any sort of accomplishment. For example, if somebody wants to spur leukemia research, they would draw up a request for a new treatment that reduced the mortality rate by 50%. Then they could front as much money towards the prize as they like, and others would be free to donat

    • I figure there should also be some sort of moderation system apart from money, so that good ideas that lack funding can get the attention needed to attract said funding.


      Yeah, it needs a great moderation system... let's have Taco design it!!

  • If I had an Idea, I could submit said Idea in hope of gaining a prize. That is a great idea. To reiterate, my idea is to have an idea to submit. With the Nasa prise as further encouragement, there's no telling how far my ideas could go. I could even come up with an idea so ingenous that it could create other ingeneous ideas in other people just by having them think about it. Now that's a brilliant idea. Of course the idea could become so powerful it would take over scandanavia, but I'm willing to accept tha

  • NASA Soliciting Ideas (Score:3, Funny)

    by pipingguy ( 566974 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @07:40PM (#10743764)

    I'm trying to figure out how Bush can be blamed for this, but I can't. Perhaps I need to be enlightened.
  • Quest Prize Suggestion:2 Million For: First human in space wearing nothing but saran wrap!

  • Robert Zubrin's Mars Prizes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by colonist ( 781404 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @08:35PM (#10744045) Journal

    NASA's Centennial Challenges program is just getting started, but it could lead to big things:

    1. Mars orbiter
    2. Mars sample return
    3. Long-term life-support system
    4. Pressurized rover on Mars
    5. Produce propellants on Mars
    6. Produce 20 tonnes of propellant on Mars
    7. Generate 15 kilowatts power (day/night average) on Mars
    8. Transport 10 tonnes to Martian surface
    9. Transport 120 tonnes to low Earth orbit
    10. Transport 50 tonnes to trans-Mars trajectory
    11. Transport 30 tonnes to Martian surface
    12. Land a crew on Mars and return them safely to Earth

    Robert Zubrin, The Case for Mars, 1997

  • some prize ideas (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    These would make for some good prizes:
    • GMail Invitation
    • 200 iTunes downloads
    • iPod Mini
    • Slashdot T-shirt

  • outsourcing... (Score:4, Funny)

    by zxflash ( 773348 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @09:18PM (#10744251) Homepage
    so basically nasa is outsourcing the job that the dod outsourced to nasa... ah beaurocracy at it's best

  • High Density Aneutronic Nuclear Fusion (Score:3, Informative)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @10:38PM (#10744544) Homepage Journal
    Back in 1992 I developed some legislation for prize awards [geocities.com] that one of the founders of the fusion energy program picked up on. It is relevant here because its goal is a very advanced form of fusion, adaptable to propulsion, that could make opening up the inner solar system for settlement, as well as industrialization, happen a lot faster.

    One of the keys to transportation economy is the time value of money -- and that translates into velocity.

    For example, one of the fallacies of asteroidal mining proponents is that you can afford to bring the stuff back to earth. The problem is the round-trip times start killing you due to interest costs on the capital equipment.

    If you had nuclear rather than chemical propulsion that helps, but you still have problems with the shear mass of fission systems.

    What you ideally want is aneutronic fusion of light atomic nuclei in a device that has a very high specific power. The worst you have to do is provide gamma ray shielding and you may actually be able to do round-trips to the asteroid belt in weeks.

    Anyway, here is an excerpt from the relevant [google.com] legislative [google.com] language [google.com]:

    (4) "scientific research" means activities that discover
    knowledge about natural phenomena, which, under existing statute,
    cannot be held as intellectual property via patent;

    (5) "scientific knowledge" means knowledge acquired or
    discovered through scientific research;

    (6) "development" means the acquisition of knowledge or
    reduction to practice of an invention which does not exist in nature
    and which has some practical value or which has value as intellectual
    property under patent law or other statutes;

    (7) "engineering break-even" means the production, by a fusion
    energy device, of a fusion burn which consumes at least 5% of the
    confined fusion fuel and which produces at least twice the energy
    consumed by the fusion energy device during the burn;

    (8) "commercial break-even" means the self-sustaining
    operation of a fusion energy device by feeding its power output back
    to its power input without the need for any outside input except its
    fuel;

    (9) "commonly available" is any fuel whose dollar (1991) per
    ounce commercial price multiplied by the number of tons of plant and
    equipment required to burn it per million watts sustained power
    production is a quantity less than 10,000 dollar-tons per megawatt-ounce;

    (10) "energetically aneutronic" means any fuel which, when
    burned in a fusion energy system, produces neutron radiation carrying
    away less than 10% of the produced energy;

    (11) "environmentally aneutronic" means any fuel which, when
    burned in a fusion energy system, produces neutron radiation carrying
    away less than 1% of the produced energy;

    ...etc...

    (6) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate engineering break-even shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund, which is hereby established, and whose contents are to be invested in 30 year Treasury instruments and whose disbursements are to be administered by the National Academy of Engineering.

    (7) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate engineering break-even using an cycle burning an energetically aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the fusion
    Energy Trust Fund.

    (8) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate engineering break-even using an cycle burning an environmentally aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the fusion
    Energy Trust Fund.

    (9) The fi

  • Better to give us our tax dollars back (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Saturday November 06, 2004 @10:43PM (#10744561) Homepage
    It would be better to shut down NASA and give us our tax dollars back so that we can fund the X-Cup through private initiatives.
    -russ
  • I say, just build a large ship, enough for say 50 people or so and launch them into space. Fuel up in orbit and launch towards the nearest earthlike planet. Give them the basic plant life generation, etc. I think you will find a whole lot of volunteers to try this and I think human ingenuity will get them out of things that come to pass, such as running out of food/water, oxygen, etc. When faced with death, you come up with some great ideas.
  • What about some goals/prizes to propel things along towards tethers, skyhooks and space elevators? Materials of specified tensile strength/weight, self-supporting tethers of specified length, deployment of orbital tethers at various lengths and altitudes, etc.

    Steve
  • So instead of one prize for a really large sum and prestige, we'll have an entire program of prizes at all sorts of dollar levels spread across dozens of sub-projects.

    Oh sure. That works great. We wouldn't think NASA would take a simple thing and over-engineer it, would we?

    I love the space program. Really I do. But NASA has lost all of my respect as an agency. The FAA has a motto of not only regulating air travel but also promoting aviation among regular people. NASA's charter should have been written thi

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Close