NASA Seeking Innovative Ideas from Public 172
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.
Come again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Come again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Come again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Come again? (Score:2)
(a) They aspire to be shameless self-promoters but
(b) they're too lazy and unimaginative.
(c) They're looking for someone else to to the heavy creative lifting
(d) for which they're willing to pay (somebody else'e) money,
(e) however they can't be precise about what they're looking for
(f) because they haven't figured it out yet (see b) and
(g) if they knew what they were looking for they wouldn't need to give taxpayer money away to somebody else to tell them what it was, would they?
Re:Come again? (Score:2)
Sentences like that have to be attacked with a preliminary compression pass, which collapses "creating and managing innovative activities, events, products, services, or other types of formal or informal education methods" into "innovative educational stunts". Then drop the idea that it's about what every Slashdotter thinks is the purpose of NASA, namely space exploration. That lets the key phrase
Re:Come again? (Score:2)
It's simply English, believe it or not.
Translated for those too lazy to bother: NASA is seeking proposals for creating PR and educational presentations, events, etc... etc...
Advertising (Score:3, Funny)
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...
Re:Advertising (Score:2, Funny)
I think they go with Pepsi. I mean, their logo is a lot easir to paint on the moon.
Re:Advertising (Score:2)
Re:Advertising (Score:2)
I thought NASA already HAS a director and programs and a mission plan.
I guess NASA should mean: NEED ASTUTE SERIOUS ADMINISTRATORS
Re:Advertising (Score:2)
Simple (Score:5, Funny)
And call the Hubble replacement... (Score:3, Funny)
Never! (Score:5, Funny)
NASA should get this one right... (Score:3, Funny)
oh my friggen god (Score:2)
Re:NASA should get this one right... (Score:2)
If you like red velvet wallpaper in your space-bordello.
How about (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How about (Score:2)
How about killing the shuttle and doing science? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
That explains DART! (Score:2)
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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.
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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 t
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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 u
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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!
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:5, Informative)
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 [amazon.com] 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
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
I'm curious: What cost would you consider acceptable? Would $35 million for a SpaceX Falcon 9 [wikipedia.org] plus another few million for a Dragon capsule [wikipedia.org] carrying 7 people be acceptable?
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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 t
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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.
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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 explo
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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.
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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.
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2, Insightful)
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 the
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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.
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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
Re:How about killing the shuttle and doing science (Score:2)
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 pass
I *think* I understand what they want (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I *think* I understand what they want (Score:2)
I don't think NASA is looking for a simple marketing campaign. I think they're looking for a virtual community. I think they want something that would be a little like MySpace, a little like Wikipedia, with chat and forums and "fun" downloads (wallpaper, NASA ringtones, etc.)
Disclose information about UFO (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Here's an innovative idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here's an innovative idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here's an innovative idea (Score:2, Informative)
I never saw it but it looked pretty lame. Actually training them (not anybody, real potential astronauts) and sending the winner into space would be far more interesting.
What, NASA does atmospheric flying too? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not... (Score:2, Funny)
They could cover complex scientific concepts like "Near and Far", "Toward and Away", and maybe even "Counting to 10 in Metric".
Couldn't hurt...
Re:Why not... (Score:2)
Oh, wait. Apparently NASA already does have its own MySpace page [myspace.com].
My Idea: Shut NASA down! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:My Idea: Shut NASA down! (Score:2)
Bad idea for science (Score:2, Insightful)
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,
Re:Bad idea for science (Score:2)
Question: Why should space science be funded separately from the National Science Foundation?
If comanies would exist for the benefit of all, you'd be right. But they aren't, they exist primarily for making money.
Fortunately, we also have non-profits like the Planetary Society and Mars Society.
*I* want to be an astronaut (Score:2)
So... Kill NASA.
Or become part of the DoD (Score:2)
The DoD has a purpose: defense. NASA doesn't really have a purpose.
Re:My Idea: Shut NASA down! (Score:2)
I don't see what is preventing private enterprises from entering the space business now. How would killing NASA further encourage them?
Your arguments are non-sequitars. You might be right, but until you can actually argue your point, you have no way to convince me.
Re:My Idea: Shut NASA down! (Score:2)
Yes, it is.
An odd claim since private companies have been buying boosters since the 1960's - and launching them.
NASA has needed an overhaul for decades (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:NASA has needed an overhaul for decades (Score:2)
Re:NASA has needed an overhaul for decades (Score:2)
Send every Congressperson into space (Score:2, Funny)
Round trip??! (Score:2)
Re:The vote will be held from orbit (Score:2)
Three words... (Score:2, Funny)
Highlights DVD Mail (Score:4, Interesting)
I've told that to every NASA and aerospace exec I've ever met. Now I'll use the webform, too.
Re:Highlights DVD Mail (Score:3)
How expensive could it be for NASA to do this? In a culture where AOL can pump out millions and millions of CD's it's be cool to see some worthwhile plastic discs being mailed about.
Re:Highlights DVD Mail (Score:2)
If they included space models/video as datasets for an open source framework like Celestia [celestiamotherlode.net], the return could be enormous. As usual with any well-communicated NASA program.
Re:Highlights DVD Mail (Score:2)
There's a joke that, if NASA were trying to sell sushi, they'd market it as 'cold dead fish'.
The best NASA videos, IMHO, are things NASA has supported but not been in charge of. Tom Hanks "From the Earth to the Moon", Sagan's "Cosmos", Morgan Freeman's "Cosmic Voyage", there's many great NASA-supported work
Re:A dvd for every US citizen? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A dvd for every US citizen? (Score:2)
Gaming! (Score:3, Interesting)
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".
Re:Gaming! (Score:2)
Jetson's cars for everyone... (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and robot maids would be nice too...
I have a more basic suggestion (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I have a more basic suggestion (Score:2)
Although not quite as extreme as your proposal, NASA is currently hoping to have some of the same results with its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services [msn.com] program. A number of private companies, including the Rutan-affiliated t/Space, are competing for contracts to deliver cargo and crew to the International Space Station. If this is successful, hopefully funding for
My first thought on this story (Score:2)
Space Elevator (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Space Elevator (Score:2)
Take a look at what's required to build a space elevator. First off, a material is required that's an order of magnitude stronger than anything we can create today. Sure, nanotubes have potential, but, they aren't there, and they are a LONG ways from practical. Next, we need a propulsion system that's an order of magnitude more efficient than anythi
SUN, BABY! (Score:3, Funny)
Here's my list (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here's my list (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think the problem stems from a lack of interest, rather it is a problem of possibilities. Ask any child in elementary school if they would like to be an astronaut. I am certain that 99% would say yes. Ask any college student if they would like to be an astronaut and 99% would say yes. Ask those same college students if they are willing do sell their souls first to the Airforce and then play the gambling game of never gettin
Re:Here's my list (Score:2)
Re:Here's my list (Score:2)
Rethink science (Score:2)
For starters, let us consider the structure of time... [timecube.com]
Hey NASA (Score:2)
stoners have hacked nasa (Score:2, Funny)
i'd say they need to hire some new I.T. staff
The real story (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a great idea! (Score:2)
Darth Vader
Re:I have a great idea! (Score:2)
What about a referal? (Score:2)
Ideas for NASA (Score:2)
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, t
Re:Ideas for NASA (Score:2)
Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
hey, it's worth a shot.
they should change their mission... (Score:2)
Re:People you want shot (Score:3, Funny)
National Assassins Space Association
Their next hit is in Mars, therefore all these tasks for manned flights.
Re:ISS Takedown (Score:2)
We have bases all over the world -- and with the USSR gone, we don't get a lot of benefit from them. If we returned to a semi-isolationist stance and let the rest of the world carry more of the "burden", we'd save enough cash to make a fleet of Space Shuttles.