Public Survey For NASA's Planetary Research Priorities 263
StephenMesser writes: "At the request of NASA, the National Research Council is conducting a planetary science community assessment of the priorities for the U.S. planetary research programs for the next 10 years. The Planetary Society has been asked to assist this "decadal survey" by seeking input from the general public about planetary exploration. Data must be input by January 31, 2002 to be counted on the survey.
CNN has a story
on the survey."
Uh? (Score:1)
Hm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hm... (Score:2, Informative)
Some moons are extremely interesting:
Moons (Score:2)
Depends, are kids just a subset of adults? :)
Some moons are fairly boring chunks of rock (like, say, The Moon), others tell a story of an extremely violent past (like, they've been blasted to bits and only just managed to stay as one entity, like Miranda [solarviews.com]).
Others have thick atmospheres containing weird-ass chemicals (like Titan [seds.org]), others have vulcanism driven by processes we barely understand (like Triton [seds.org], or Io [solarviews.com])
Some may have oceans [nasa.gov], others are small chunks of rock we would barely notice if they weren't orbiting some other body (like Phobos [seds.org]).
The planets may be more interesting in some respects, but there are a lot more moons to look at :)
All these worlds are yours... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All these worlds are yours... (Score:3, Interesting)
I really don't think that Europa would serve as a "marine preserve" for terran sea-life. Just think of the expenditure necessary. Far better to apply those resources to the terran oceans themselves.
:Peter
Re:All these worlds are yours... (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps NASA will perfect a mag-lev, however, and cut costs some that way...
BlackGriffen
Re:All these worlds are yours... (Score:1)
Cheaper Engines (Score:1)
Secret Spy Base (Score:2)
Is any body with me???
Some more questions for the American public: (Score:5, Funny)
2) Is space (a) like a big hole or (b) more like a big black curtain with holes poked in it?
3) Aliens come from (a) space or (b) Mexico?
4) When was the moon landing faked? (a) 1962 (b) 1975 (c) 1992
5) What film do you think portrays space most accurately? (a) ET (b) Star Wars (c) Bring It On.
6) When we meet aliens from space, how should they be killed? [provide brief description]
Thank you for your time. You may never have to think about space again.
Re:Some more questions for the American public: (Score:4, Funny)
A big hole, I looked it up in the dictionary, or an encyclopedia or somethin'. 'Space', it says, 'is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen..' and so on.
Re:Some more questions for the American public: (Score:2)
Re:Some more questions for the American public: (Score:2)
7) My favorite alien is [a] Mork [b] Spock [c] D'Aun [d] Cowboy Neal
Re:Some more questions for the American public: (Score:2)
7) My favorite alien is [a] Mork [b] Spock [c] D'Aun [d] Cowboy Neal "
You skipped the best one, T'Pol! Oh, T'Pol, *droool*.
Re:Some more questions for the American public: (Score:3, Funny)
Reminds me of a question in an astophysics class a couple of years ago:
He was quite a character, that prof... :-)
I'm all for planetary exploration (Score:1, Funny)
Wrong questions (Score:3, Insightful)
The survey is inherently flawed. It asks you to choose among a list of missions, but its still NASA's list.
When you have to choose between a rock and a hard place, I'd rather have a third choice.
Re:Wrong questions (Score:2)
Wrong! (Score:2)
Consider Deep Space One, which, at a thousandth the cost of the ISS, managed to test five major new technologies. Which would we be better off with---the ISS, or a thousand Deep Space probes, actually improving technology instead of whoring useless PR to the six o'clock news?
Manned space travel just isn't feasible. Let go of the stupid "cool" factor and focus on the machinery. When something like the much-lamented Rotary Rocket is built that can act as a low-earth-orbit "taxi", then we'll talk about manned spaceflight.
-grendel drago
Re:Wrong! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't feasible NOW. That is exactly the point of researching it.
Get NASA out of the way (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Sailing around the world just isn't feasible, everyone knows you'll fall over the edge.
You need to have a Wright Flyer before you can have a Concorde. At the moment, space travel is very much in that Wright Flyer stage, having hardly advanced since the day of Yuri Gagarin, and it shouldn't be! We NEED to do MORE manned space flight to advance the technology!
Uh, no. (Score:2)
It's clear that we need to learn to build decent ships before we start stuffing them with people. Yes, the eventual point is human transport. But we need to develop the ships first, and it's ridiculous to waste money on ferrying people around in test rockets. At this point, there's really no reason to.
First the ships, then the people.
-grendel drago
Cheap ^H^H^H^H^HAffordible launch technology! (Score:2)
I see that there are many many problems that humanity is facing in the next 100-1000-10000 years, and pretty much all of them hinge on getting a cheap, renewable energy source. And the only good, safe bet we have is orbital solar power. And that's NOT going to happen until we develop a cheap way to launch and assemble it. That's got to be our #1 priority. With cheap launches, we have a much more economical outlook on having a stronger presence in space, and with a stronger presence in space, we have a much better chance of surviving a catastrophe like global climate change, epidemic, or asteroid impact. Further down the road - 5000+ years, if we can find and colonize some other planets, even if we never acheive faster than light travel, we can at least broaden our chances at surviving longer, even after the sun explodes. (er- okay, "expands"), and maybe in the 10,000-year range, we can have spread far enough that a local supernova wouldn't eradicate us either.
Re:Not My Point. (Score:3, Insightful)
We've got a space station that does nothing, a shuttle fleet that's an aging joke, some moon rocks, and a bunch of unmanned probes sending back some truly amazing data about the solar system which, incidentally, is useful only if we follow up with real people.
We have universities to do research in space, we have industries to build factories in space, we have millions of entrepreneurs with ideas on how to use space and make a buck in the process. But they can't do a thing as long as they're down here.
I think we're trying to argue the same point here. NASA has had 40 years to open up space to the general population; by any account, their performance towards that end has been abysmal. With the kind of money they threw at Apollo and are throwing now at the ISS, we should have seen some progress by now. No such luck.
Personally, I think they should take NASA's budget for the next 10 years and offer it as a reward to anyone who can build a LEO launch system that works for under $100/kg.
Re:Not My Point. (Score:3, Insightful)
We need more Freeman Dysons in NASA, and less accountants, bureacrats, and cogs-in-the-machine engineers.
It wouldn't be so bad if they don't plan everything so far in advance that they've even erased HOPE that they'll do something interesting.
Space should be opened up for everyone, not just those with advanced degrees in aeronautical engineering.
Re:Not My Point. (Score:2, Insightful)
Another problem with Congress is that representatives tend to only authorize projects which bring jobs to their state or district.
NASA is a governmental entity, so it's little surprise that it's finally acting like one. If NASA is to become fun again, it will have to grow more autonomous. During its heyday, it had free rein to do whatever it wanted to beat the Russians. It was expensive to do so, but at least it got results. These days, NASA is still expensive, but its lackluster performace of late leaves the public wondering why they fund it at all.
$100 for LEO/kg? Try Science 101. (Score:2)
That was fuel cost alone. Not including engine costs, design cost, manufacturing costs, assembly costs, transport costs, operations costs, support personell, launch costs, profit etc. etc. If you strengthen the structure to survive reentry to reuse and recover some of those costs you'll already be way over budget, look at all those heat-resistent tiles on the space shuttle, or the reentry come of a missile, or the heat shield of Apollo capsule, I hardly think you'll get those (+ 100 times any weight increase in fuel, tank capacity, engine capacity) for $30/kg payload.
Of course you'll come in at this point with "what about fission/fusion/anti-matter?" Well, they're not here, and don't count on them coming anytime soon. Radiation shielding for fission? Fusion we haven't even managed to make a power plant out of? Anti-matter, which we can hardly produce a gram of?
No, that price would go unclaimed, and where would that leave us?
Kjella
Try thinking outside the box (Score:2)
- Laser-detonated "ice rocket", and
- Lofstrom loop.
In the case of the Lofstrom loop, the efficiency of conversion of electricity to kinetic energy of the object to be placed in orbit might be over 50%. The total energy required is mgh + 0.5mv, or 800000*9.8 + 0.5*7600 = 36.72 MJ/kg. Call it 10 KWH/kg; at $.10/KWH and 50% efficiency, the energy cost would be $2/kg.Exploring technologies like these would break enough of the current assumptions behind the conclusion of "it can't be done" to really make a difference.
Re:$100 for LEO/kg? Try Science 101. (Score:2)
Sure, it's barely proof of concept at this point, just like all the others. So were rockets 60 years ago. So was the gadget I use to type this, I might add. Point is, they halfheartedly tried one alternative to rockets, in the process spending a fraction of what they already have on the ISS. And they don't seem to have any plans to try again. Guess they think a couple thousand dollars per kilo is good enough.
eh, leave it to the pros (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, if you ask a question like that to the public you'll get 25% say Mission to Mars, 25% say base on the Moon, 25% say explore other Solar systems, and 25% vote for Britney Spears. Most normal people don't understand how difficult or how beneficial the missions they would suggest would actually be. It's like asking the guy that bags your groceries for help with Differential Equations.
Re:eh, leave it to the pros (Score:2)
Re:eh, leave it to the pros (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Not unless you have a clue what you're deciding about. This is one of the major problems inherent in democracy: Nobody (apart from the Emperor himself) knows how long the Emperor of China's nose is, but everyone has an opinion. The one person who knows gets outvoted by the billion who don't.
Well there are three ways to divide power. (Score:2)
2. Give it to those that think they know better (Aristocracy, Communism, we know what's good for the People)
3. Give it to those that actually know better (sounds nice, we just haven't found a way to separate them from 2., because if we knew that, we'd know what actually was better too, and so we wouldn't need them in the first place.)
Not including everybody *taking* power, be it dictators or major corporations, by bloodline (Monarchy) or divine right (Pope running the Vatican, a state of its own).
Kjella
Re:eh, leave it to the pros (Score:2)
Leave it to the corps, you mean (Score:2)
If we could somehow break the constituencies for boondoggles like the ISS and break the dams holding back money for things like the DC-1 and Mars Direct, we could get somewhere. It could happen if there was a groundswell of public interest which out-shouted the lobbyists for the current pork-barrel schemes. Unfortunately, the public really doesn't care much for space, and unless enough people's votes can be changed by a pol's position on the issue, the pols are not going to change the way the money is flowing.
Re:Leave it to the corps, you mean (Score:2)
the public really doesn't care much for space
This is true in the sense that space is not as popular as, say, the military right now, but much of the public does like it when we do Bold New Ventures In Space, because decades of science fiction have sold them on that dream. But that does point to a way to break the issue, one that's already being worked on: make space accessible to the common person, such that non-elites can afford their own access to space. Once that happens, more people will start caring, for it will begin to directly affect them...but it has to be done with (even in spite of) NASA, for now.
Maybe... (Score:1)
Cheap way out of the gravity well. (Score:1)
Please find a cheap way to escape Earth's gravity well.
Re:Cheap way out of the gravity well. (Score:3, Funny)
Dear Nasa,
Please find a way to destroy the earth so that all of mankind can have a chance to goto space -- and fast.
Re:Cheap way out of the gravity well. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure someone who actually knows about this stuff has looked into the possibily of such a launch system. but I'd be interested in any pointers to discussions of such a system.
Re:Cheap way out of the gravity well. (Score:3, Interesting)
Possibly more economical would be to build one that launches a plane at mach 7 (a mere 2.3 kps), whereupon the scramjet kicks in and takes it up to the mach 26 or so needed for orbit. There's bunches of optimizations you can use, but suffice to say it works best in a vacuum.
Re:Cheap way out of the gravity well. (Score:2)
Re:Cheap way out of the gravity well. (Score:2, Interesting)
Payload is subject to very high acceleration (since all of your V is acquired during launch), some sort of rocket boosters will probably be used for escaping the Terran gravity well in conjunction with the launchers. You won't be launching any live cargo, unless you want it not so live when it gets into orbit.
Power reqirements are very high, we'd probably have to dedicate a nuke plant to supply a steady stream of reliable power for launch.
Noise problems - launch will probably exceed speed of sound, which means your launcher and the payload flight path will have to be away from populated areas.
Space (physical space). You'll need miles of secure track, miles of superconducting wire, space for the loading facility, and several miles downrange of the launcher (for saftey).
It has been suggested that a mountain would make a good launcher, some where in one of the newly industrialized nations (like India, or China) where the governmencould dedicate the space by fiat.
Re:Cheap way out of the gravity well. (Score:2)
As a bonus, there's already a big space/scientific community there for Keck. Rocket components can be delivered from west-coast aerospace industries like Boeing and Lockheed via ocean vessel, and it's closer to the equator than any other US territory, PLUS it's halfway to Russia, so Cosmonauts and RSA personnel on joint ventures can easily access it. PLUS, having a big electromagnetic "anything" launcher pointed westward in the middle of the pacific would REALLY piss China off.
Re:Cheap way out of the gravity well. (Score:2)
The only PROBLEM with this, is that Hawaii has such a small population, they can't lobby congress effectively for big-budget-science projects like this. So we'll probably end up locating this thing in Texas instead.
Re:Cheap way out of the gravity well. (Score:2)
On the other hand, Southern California wouldn't be a bad choice either. Good weather, close to JPL in Pasadena, close to Vandenburg.
Cheap way out of the gravity well . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.spacescience.com/headlines/y2000/ast07
A Pleasant Change. (Score:2, Insightful)
Point: Our government funds NASA
Point: We deserve some of a say in what happens at NASA, in one way or another. They're using our hard-earned tax dollars.
Finally, we get our say. In the form of a survey.
Works for me.
Re:A Pleasant Change. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't miss the point (Score:2)
Especially once the /. effect gets going. Might as well toss the "results" out right now.
Pete & Repeat were in a boat... (Score:1)
Here's another article [slashdot.org], too! (good source, promise)
Narrow survey (Score:2)
Or the option for supporting .NET??? [slashdot.org]
Surveys like this are pointless. (Score:5, Funny)
Given that most people are not familiar with current scientific research, but are quite up-to-date on blockbuster sci-fi movies, I modestly propose an improved NASA survey....
Where do you want the USA to be 200 years from now?
1) Star Wars. We at NASA get to work on personal high-performance spacecraft, cool blasters, and the search for cute, intelligent extra-terrestrials.
2) Star Trek. We work on big Navy spaceships, womens' rights, and the search for aliens made of pure energy, etc.
3) Babylon 5. We will design big ass space stations that are like New York only in space.
4) 2001. We will build cool spaceships, smart computers. You won't understand and we don't care.
5) Buck Rogers. We'll make cute robots. We'll hire hot babes. Everyone wins!
6) Dark Star. Hey, we admit it: we're just another government agency that does the best in can with limited funds.
7) Capricorn 5. You want cool video? We'll provide it.
8) Armageddon. We will protect you against incredibly improbable things.
9) Independence Day: We'll really ramp up our Area 51 research project. Crop circles? Cow anus mutilation? We're ON IT!
10) Apollo 13: We'll stick people in tin cans, throw them into hazardous environments, and see what happens. More exciting than Survivor!
Addition (Score:1)
Re:Surveys like this are pointless. (Score:2, Funny)
My God! I think we've just solved NASA's budget problems!
I'd tune in to see who got voted out of the airlock!
Re:Surveys like this are pointless. (Score:4, Funny)
Survivor V: MIR
It's happinin', even as we speak.
Re:Surveys like this are pointless. (Score:2)
Re:Surveys like this are pointless. (Score:2, Funny)
BlackGriffen
(that ad even sounds probable! but the implication of not being able to leave windows *shudders*)
Just ask why - the rest follows (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are out to study the evolution of the solar system you're probably going to want to look at the planets we haven't really examined in any detail yet (i.e. the distant outer ones), or do some comet fly-bys. If you want to look for life, then Europa's probably you're best bet right now. If you want to understand the Earth's environment in the context of other planets then it's off to Venus or Mars (the "most" Earth-like planets). If you're hot for colonization, then you probably want to take a really close and detailed look at Mars. If space resources are your thing then near Earth asteroids are the place to be.
The big question that is missing from the survey is: how well does our present budget match up with our intended purpose (whatever that may be), and if there is a mismatch should we increase the budget or reduce the magnitude of our goals. Personally, I lean towards increasing the budget (which has been happening, but it's all been funneled into ISS), but I'd be interested to see the general public's response to that question (although NASA might not like the answer).
Survey Comments (Score:1)
I personally ranked indirect improvements to earth the most important: Studying other planets to learn more about earth, and accumulating resources from other planets. I'm not an astronomer (I'm a software developer), but feel the space race reflected a slight childish nature towards building bigger, better toys that will simply be jettisoned into outer space. I would also like to see less missions fail due to the risk of metric to imperial conversions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:False results (Score:1)
Mixed feelings (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, how much would you pay to spend a week-long vacation in orbit? Or move to a retirement home in Luna's 1/6th gravity? Did you know there's more metals, a lot of them quite valuable, sitting in that hunk o' junk Eros than the human race has mined from the ground in it's entire existence? Any idea the kind of stuff manufacturing could do with abundant vacuum, near Zero K temperatures, and microgravity? How big you can make a space habitat when you're not limited to earth-made materials?
Again, none of this exists today because it's insanely expensive just to get off the ground.
Europa life an anticlimax? (Score:1)
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE INSTRUCTIONS!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE INSTRUCTIONS!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE INSTRUCTIONS!!! (Score:2)
I voted backwards... looks like we will be doing stupid asteroid research.
Kevin
survey ranking backwards (Score:2, Interesting)
With this type of ranking system we will be exploring Pluto for the next 50 years instead of colonizing Mars
What if space is four-dimensional? (Score:1, Funny)
Nanotech. Now. (Score:3, Interesting)
The basic theories behind nanotech have been subject to scrutiny for decades now, and despite many attempts, nobody has successfully disputed the core claims. Yes, there are critics, but look closer and you'll see that the claims are either unsupported, or they do not attack the core claim that is relevant here: the safest bet, by far, is that we will soon have a very large jump in our abilities to send stuff into space.
That jump point is close enough now that it doesn't make sense to spend our resources on conventional technologies. The planets will still be pretty much the same 5 to 25 years from now, and whatever we learn from doing things the old-fashioned way isn't going to be nearly as beneficial as getting the good stuff up and running sooner.
Put the money into making nanotech work. Now.
--willdye
Re:Nanotech. Now. (Score:2, Informative)
he planets will still be pretty much the same 5 to 25 years from now
The Pluto-Kuiper express mission relies on the position of Jupiter being the way it will be for only the next few years- its gravity is crucial for reaching Pluto in enough time to study Pluto's atmosphere. Because of Pluto's wide orbital ellipse, it will soon be too far away from the sun and its atmosphere will freeze. So it won't really be the same at all.
Otherwise, I quite agree with you. Nanotechnology is really important- and it is possible that science will bring us other ways to get to Pluto quickly enough.
Survey Schmurvey (Score:2, Insightful)
If this survey represents in any way the thinking at NASA, then the US's space future is doomed.
Its frustrating to even ponder whats wrong with the questions. They seem to be picked as if the space program is just imaginary government bluster with no purpose behind it.
Take the first set about the future of the planetary exploratory program. Each one is something to do, but not connected to a philosophy or plan. Sure you can study the origins of the Solar system or look for life, but there is no reason or scheme expressed as to why this would be the right thing to do. They are just random data points can't form any sort of rational approach.
Question 2 reminds me of that game: would you rather be poked in the eye or eat a bug?
The last is a list of things with the word mission behind it. What does it mean?
The entire rest of the questionaire is pure demographics info.
Re:Survey Schmurvey (Score:2)
I felt it was so limited, I sent an email to them. I highly recommend you all do the same.
I'm guessing that this survey data was going to be used to present to the government as "justification" for projects and future budgeting. I hope they get much more out of this than that.
Planetary Society (Score:2)
To Quote Montgomery Burns: (Score:4, Funny)
NASA should start on this task immediately.
Indifferent public (Score:2, Interesting)
What I'd like to see, which I personally think would be more effective would be an effort to increase public awareness of space and science in general. As long as the public's impression of scientists and engineers is of some socially inept pocket protector packing nerd who spends his days working on some insignificant project with no tangible benefit to society in general, then public support for the space program will continue to remain low.
Hey, a physics undergrad can always dream can't he?
what to cut (Score:2)
Space...the final nursery. (Score:2, Insightful)
So it would seem that just like bacteria in a petri dish, there is a set amount of people that any particular hunk of planet can support. Now there are other petri dishes...er, um planets out there that may be viable for us. Planets that may already be suited for us or require minimal terraforming. And all this so we can screw like crazed weasels. Great. Let's go. In the meantime, we should all considering investing heavily in latex. b-)
Mind you now, we should also be working on clean and efficient technologies to prolong our stay here on Earth as well as getting around the sticky religious issues and really pushing population control. If we encourage it now, we may be able to make it something embraceable rather than going the route of the Chinese government. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of repair.
Wow, OK, sorry about that, I think I've started to wander...hmmm...where did I leave that sandwhich....
Re:Space...the final nursery. (Score:2)
Colonization of other worlds, that's hundreds, if not thousands or tens of thousands of years from now. Overpopulation will be a problem that will have to be dealt with in a much much sooner time-frame. Either through mass-extinction, or somehow learning to cope with 50 billion humans.
(by the way, latex allergies are rising in our population. If you think about it, it's evolution in action. Those who are allergic to latex (like myself) are a bit more likely to breed successfully (got 3 rug rats myself! I know there are other options, but reduce the options - and you have an increased probability of fertility) therefore, . . . well, you do the math).
Now - about population control, even the most draconian least free governments on the planet (Communist Maoist China) has TRIED this, and failed miserably. They've managed to put a dent in their growth curve, but it's still increasing. In the long run, it's not going to work in China, and if it can't work in China, how in hell do you think it's going to work in a democracy. Nobody's going to vote for that until we're up to our armpits in starving corpses and feces. By that time, nature will have taken care of it.
Mine the astroids! (Score:2)
Mining some astroids would be good for starters. The PR would also be quite nice. "And NASA announced their new plan today to start turning a 200 million dollar a year profit by 2005."
(numbers just thrown out there of course)
Either that or get a dude on Mars and, oh yah, STOP FUCKING THINGS UP. Heh.
And get the damned space station done already, people can't figure out why everything isn't just built at once and then all shoved up there as fast as possible. Whats with the delays? Fuck the russians, I want my space station NOW damnit!
And who approves their budget for this? (Score:2)
You also have a touching belief in the purity of spirit of politicians. Hopelessly naive, but touching.
a "planetary" perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Make no mistake, it does read like a PR stunt, but its not NASA trying to spin to us. This "survey" is in large part an effort by The Planetary Society to justify their goals and priorities, in the near future to NASA and a highly volatile U.S. congress.
Notice, no manned missions? Do you think ordinary people care about them? In large part, having live people on the scene is something that most ordinary folk can relate to more than having robots crawling around or some deep space probe whizzing by. Its also, tremendously greater expense, and there's some debate within the scientific community over the relative value of manned vs unmanned flight, however, the Planetary Society has pretty much always come out dead-set against manned exploration- its just not their priority or interest.I find it curious that while many individual members/supporters of PS (like their founder, Sagan himself) acknowledge an interest in discovering habitats and environments suitable for future human settlement, they've been very loath to begin acting on that today. I suspect that results of the survey are likely to aid PS in representing their agendas to NASA as "what the people really want".
So... NASA wins, PS wins, Zubrin [marssociety.com] loses, everyone else goes home happy.
Note, I personally appreciate the agendas that both the rabid "humans in space!" and "robots in space!" camps further. Its important to keep them both in perspective, since they each have value.
Kennedy's Legacy (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Go to the moon and return [X]
2. Develop a nuclear rocket
3. Advance communication satellites [X]
4. Satellites for weather bureau [X]
We have yet to implement a nuclear rocket. In his own words [umb.edu]:
One of the reasons NASA has lost popularity is that they don't continue to do truly ambitous projects. If you read between the lines, obviously Kennedy was thinking of Mars and beyond. It probably would have suprised him that in 2002 we are still only thinking of going there using conventional means.
As the bumpersticker says... (Score:2)
Promoting exploration (Score:2)
NASA should be doing everything it can to help commercial enterprises gain a foothold in space. When that happens, the cost of getting into space will begin to drop dramatically. In another 30 years, commercial trips to the moon could become a reality.
duplicate (Score:2)
Re:duplicate (Score:2)
Pardon My Cynicism (Score:2)
But, what, pray tell does the general public know about the best places to explore?
Politically, I know this is a good way to engage the public in this exciting area of science, and I know that many people want a say in how their tax dollars are spent.
For the record, this particular citizen would prefer that the decisions be made on a purely technical basis, including input from the most respected and knowledgable astronomers in the world.
That, to me, would make me feel a lot more comfortable about where my dollars are going than if the decision were made on the basis of what 2000 third grade students thought was the "most cool" thing to do in space, which is almost as likely to be off the mark as what 550 Congressman thought was "the most cool" thing to do in space.
public lacks imagination of expert (Score:2)
Re:Not a good idea (Score:2)
Re:Not a good idea (Score:2)
I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this irks me a lot. Do you have any concept of just how vast "outer space" is? We could go on using and destroying world after world for literally billions and billions and billions of years and we will NEVER RUN OUT. There are vastly more resources in space than there are here on earth. We *can't* abuse space, no matter how hard we try, becuase, for human purposes, there is a virtually limitless amount of energy (and thus matter) out there...
Re:Not a good idea (Score:2)
Populating further here isn't a good idea (Score:2)
Re:Not a good idea (Score:2)
Re:Not a good idea (Score:2)
What do you think wheat is? It's just refined poo.