

NASA Asks the Public For Advice On Goals 43
JeremyYoung writes: "The National Academy of Science's National Research Council is conducting what is being called the Solar System Exploration Survey at NASA's request. In it they are including public opinion from a web-based survey on the direction of NASA through 2013. The survey itself can be found at this page on the Planetary Society website. The article with more detail in explaining this is here. The survey closes on January 31, so don't miss this chance to tell NASA what you think it should be doing. pssst ... Mars can be done cheaply."
instead of mars, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:instead of mars, (Score:1)
Re:instead of mars, (Score:1)
Re:instead of mars, (Score:1)
I thought the only reason to send a probe to Pluto now is because it's more efficent to do so, but if the probe is powered all the way there, then who cares?
Re:instead of mars, (Score:1)
This may seem silly... (Score:5, Informative)
Public surveys.. (Score:3, Funny)
Two, and most importantly, it was a form of multiple choice, with no space for free form answers. Had it been otherwise, the inundation of 'hax0r j00!' and 'go away alien fagz0rs' would have convinced them to start searching for intelligent life on Earth, first.
We should locate the closest alien life (Score:1)
Triton! (Score:3, Interesting)
Why go to yet another piece of inert rock when there are places like this? (ignoring for a second the small matter of cost, obviously).
Needs Guidance. (Score:2)
You are under my power. You will do what I say. (Score:3, Funny)
Is there anything like this for the CIA?
Re:You are under my power. You will do what I say. (Score:2)
That's alright... (Score:1)
Back To The Future: (Score:3, Funny)
Needs Guidance (Score:2)
NASA has needed some propper Purpose, Direction and Motivation for a while. Too bad the bright Slashdot geeks can't provide NASA with some real Wall to Wall Counceling.
Perhaps to get Carmack some real funding and engineer support. Or land a sterile probe on Europa. Or a radio telescope on the dark side of the moon.
Slightly Off Topic (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I think this should be the top priority. This would solve many of our problems and would allow a manned mission to Mars be possible. Why isn't NASA working towards this? What is prohibiting them from doing it? Or are they making progress that I am not aware?
Re:Slightly Off Topic (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a problem with it though
Anything in motion inside the space station will be subject to what is called "coriolis forces", which would not be experienced due to gravitational forces. The direction of the force is always perpendicular both to the axis of the space station, and the direction of motion. The faster the station rotates, the more the effect will be. So, one should try to make the station larger to minimize coriolis effects.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae20
Re:Slightly Off Topic (Score:2)
Re:Slightly Off Topic (Score:1)
Re:Slightly Off Topic (Score:2, Informative)
hah :) you've been watching simpsons too much :)
A toilet bowl is far to irregular to notice this effect. Even a sink would have trouble showing it.
see: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.htm l [psu.edu]
Re:Slightly Off Topic (Score:2)
Coriolis force is not a killer (Score:2)
Of course, for a small station or vehicle it's more difficult to have a large value of r. Fortunately, there are at least two ways around this:
Priorities (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Priorities (Score:1)
and why exactly would you use solar panels on an interstellar craft, mars is essentially on the edge of effective solar power usage, any farther than that and it becomes to weak to power the craft (just consider the inverse square law and you will see). and why would you want to accelerate IONS up to 99% the speed of light, what you would want to accelerate are protons and what you are refering to would involve a linear accelerator, and that isn't the type of thing you want to have to lug around with you considering it would be sereval km long, and weigh an ungodly amount. you would want something like that to be stationary on an asteroid or something, this is discussed in an old (97'-98') Discover magazine. and antimatter space craft have theoretical velocities of approximately the speed of light (~99.999%) using the best of the best because the exhaust would have a velocity of the speed of light if it is a true photon rocket.
you know your idea about not going if its just to say we sent a man is bull because what if all of the explorers of the past had said "its too far", or "it is going to take to long", or "i am just going to wait for some more advanced tech to take me there" i personally would have called them pussies, hell i don't care if it would take 10 years to get to mars you can sign me up. while i do believe we should devote a large percentage to advanced propulsion research it shouldn't stop our explorationm you know we can't just wait for the magical technology that will transport us there instantanously otherwise we will never get there, and will have likely missed out.
a bugg (aka the rocketman)
Re:Priorities (Score:1)
Re:Priorities (Score:1)
Re:Priorities (Score:1)
Re:Priorities (Score:1)
a bugg
Re:Priorities (Score:3, Interesting)
These questions weren't even asked on the survey though maybe NASA considers them as part and parcel of all the other options offered. Whatever the case, I do believe that it would be a great achievement for the human race and the planet, for us to venture out into wide and vasty space that is the rest of the universe. Who knows what mind blowing, cool stuff is out there for us to find.
What I'd like to see (Score:3, Interesting)
Robots to everywhere.
Mine the asteroids.
Move industry into outer space where possible.
Men to Mars.
A bit of Background on the Survey (Score:2)
Science magazine had a news article [sciencemag.org] on this in their 4 Jan. issue, if you want to see
The public has no say on the most important things (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The public has no say on the most important thi (Score:4, Insightful)
Arbitrary "cheap" (by government standards - say, $1 million or $10 million a pop) prizes for the first N organzations to achieve certain milestones (for example, the X-Prize one of getting one vehicle to 100 or so miles up, twice within two weeks; next one is maybe a hypersonic transport, capable of getting a 100 kilogram payload from Los Angeles to Tokyo in under two hours, again twice within two weeks with the same craft; et cetera). Various limitations on the types of organizations, to discourage cheating (and maybe also limit to US orgs only, to help this get around national security concerns)...but, once the specs are out, they do not change. Boeing and Lockheed can maybe pick off a couple of the prizes then scrap development of their projects like they have in the past, but smaller entrants (not affiliated in any way with any other winners of the same prize, or with the US government) would pick up the rest...and then, out of (say) 5 prizes, there would be 3 viable cheap-to-orbit lauunch vehicles out there, ready for public use.
Science by polls? (Score:2)
Are you bored of brocolli experiments in space too?
NASA should... (Score:2)
Give it to the Russians. (Score:1)
How about something simple... (Score:1)
1) Space probes all are slowing down
2) GPS sats are not moving they way they should
3) pendulums swing funny during solar eclipses
I think these three are related. I also think they are ignored because they don't fit in with so many modern theorys but then again alchemstry keept many smart men from seeing the truth.