Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Public Survey For NASA's Planetary Research Priorities 263

Posted by timothy from the find-a-planet-made-out-of-money dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Public Survey For NASA's Planetary Research Priorities More

Public Survey For NASA's Planetary Research Priorities

Comments Filter:
  • We all filled in the survey last week [slashdot.org]

  • Hm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Scoria ( 264473 ) <{slashmail} {at} {initialized.org}> on Monday January 28, 2002 @11:19PM (#2917724) Homepage
    Not just planets, but some moons [nasa.gov] too.

    • Re:Hm... (Score:2, Informative)

      by MikeyLikesIt! ( 313421 )
      Not just planets, but some moons too.

      Some moons are extremely interesting:

      • Europa and Callisto may have oceans, thus making them the most likely places that we will find extra-terrestrial life
      • Titan [seds.org] has a nitrogen-rich atmosphere that is so thick that astronomers have not yet been able to see the surface.
      • The Moon - as has been mentioned before on Slashdot, the Moon may have water [nasa.gov] at its south pole. It is important to confirm this initial observation. If water does exist there, it could be mined and used as fuel, thus acting as an inter-planetary refuelling point.

  • All these worlds are yours... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @11:20PM (#2917728)
    My vote is that we spend more time researching, and eventually travelling to the Jovan moons. The different moons all have different properties, such as minerals or interesting conditions, that might make them useful to humanity. Europa in particular might either contain its own sea-life or be a possible sanctuary for terran sea-life.
    • I agree, especially in regards to Europa, ominous warnings from black monoliths not withstanding. If life were discovered on Europa, it could be the shot in the arm that space exploration has desperately needed for so long. Once the moon race was won, the drive for space petered out. There is little incentive in the popular mindset for space exploration. But extra-terrestrial life, even if it is just simple bacterium (although higher life forms would be a definite bonus), excites everyone.

      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
      • But getting hump back whales on europa could save the earth from big cigars with blue balls! In all seriousness, though, what space exploration really needs is a cheap space port. Ideally, it should be near the equator, high in altitude (less air resistance at high altitudes = less fuel wasted), and thermally insulated (prevent things from icing up). The Andes sound like the ideal natural location, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

        Perhaps NASA will perfect a mag-lev, however, and cut costs some that way...

        BlackGriffen
    • what if the jovians don't like that and attack us instead (ala nadesico)?
  • Let the private sector do the work. Fund cheaper engine technology! On to Mars!
  • I vote we send James Bond to the moon with a beautiful super model and prevent Dr. No and his international terrorist spy henchmen from conducting covert operations aimed at destroying the world!

    Is any body with me???
  • 1) Roughly speaking, where is space?

    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.
  • But I think if we look more closely right under our noses at the moon, we'll see that big black monolith. Listen to what it says though and stay away from Europa.

  • Wrong questions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by meckardt ( 113120 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @11:28PM (#2917767) Homepage

    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.

    • Thank you. Fuck the robotic outposts, think people.
      • Bah. That was the kind of thinking that put incredibly expensive men on the moon and is costing a hundred billion dollars for a practically useless "space station".

        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)

          by Dyolf Knip ( 165446 )
          Of course manned spaceflight's not feasible, it costs more than it's weight in gold to put something in orbit. As you said, when we have cheap launch costs then we can talk. Except NASA isn't interested in cheap launches. I noticed that 'improve launch technology beyond ancient rocket levels' isn't on the survey anywhere. They have zero interest in expanding our presence in space. Left to them, we'll have the finest satellite system in the world and nothing else.

        • Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @12:11AM (#2917895) Homepage
          Manned space travel just isn't feasible.

          Isn't feasible NOW. That is exactly the point of researching it.
        • Manned space travel just isn't feasible.

          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!
          • No. Manned spaceflight is (estimating here) at least an order of magnitude more expensive than unmanned. We still lack cheap (under $100/kg, as someone here said), reusable (Space Shuttle? not reusable---salvageable) launch technology.

            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
            • Affordable launch technology really needs to be the #1 priority. Until we can get into orbit without breaking the budget and getting the republicans all in a huff, we need to really focus and focus HARD on making launches much, much cheaper.

              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.

  • eh, leave it to the pros (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28, 2002 @11:29PM (#2917774)
    Not that I mind getting a little input, but aren't the guys at Nasa better suited to be making this kind of decision or is this all about PR?
    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.
    • It's our money, shouldn't we have a say as to what it should be spent on?

      • Re:eh, leave it to the pros (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @02:04AM (#2918164) Homepage
        It's our money, shouldn't we have a say as to what it should be spent on?

        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.
        • 1. Give it to those that don't have a clue (Democrazy)
          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
      • More to the point: NASA gets its money based, in no small part, on how popular its results are. That which best captures the public imagination, can most easily get the funding to pay for the rest of NASA. Thus, poll to find out what has best captured the public imagination...
        • NASA gets money based on how successfully it lobbies Congress. NASA has a much easier time when it has other people's lobbyists, such as those from the aerospace industry, lobbying alongside them; if NASA can't get money for a project, it can't do the project.

          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.

          • That's a more than fair criticism, and one I unfortunately have to agree with, except:

            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.
  • They could actually prove that the earth is flat.
  • Dear NASA,

    Please find a cheap way to escape Earth's gravity well.
    • Bah.. why find a cheap way to escape gravity when we could simply do away with it.

      Dear Nasa,

      Please find a way to destroy the earth so that all of mankind can have a chance to goto space -- and fast.
    • For various reasons too tedious to explain, I've been watching "launches" of Disney's roller-coaster California Screamin' [themeparkinsider.com]. I believe that it is propelled by a series of electro-magnets in the track. This sends the roller-coaster cars off at a remarkable acceleration. I have no idea of the efficiency of this, but if it isn't too wasteful than a long ramp up a mountain should get something moving pretty fast. The best part is that the mass of the system doesn't have to be lifted and is entirely reusable.

      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.

      • Well, it's basically a magnetic catapault. Great in theory, except that the payload has to leave the muzzle at 8 kilometers per second while still fairly low in the atmosphere.

        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.

      • Problems with electromag acceleration launchers (essentially massive railguns):

        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.
        • Mona Kea, Hawaii would be MY choice. I'll scout it out for the rest of y'all, 'k?

          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.
          • I forgot, geologists (vulcanologists) are also a dime-a-dozen on Hawaii. I'm sure they'd also want to be close to where the "action" is in exogeology research.

            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.
    • it must be time for the Clarke Space Elevator :

      http://www.spacescience.com/headlines/y2000/ast07s ep_1.htm?list

  • A Pleasant Change. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZaBu911 ( 520503 )
    Point: Our government is a democracy
    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I agree that it's highly unlikely that NASA will jump right out and do 'survey says....we go to ___'.

      Especially once the /. effect gets going. Might as well toss the "results&quot out right now.

  • So, is it OK to send in two of the same comment/opinion?

    Here's another article [slashdot.org], too! (good source, promise)
  • So much for freedom of choice... where's the CowboyNeal option??

    Or the option for supporting .NET??? [slashdot.org]

  • Surveys like this are pointless. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gorobei ( 127755 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @12:00AM (#2917864)
    Most poeple do not have the education or time to provide good input to surveys like this. NASA should provide a broad set of possible future directions/goals and allow people to pick amongst them.

    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!

  • Just ask why - the rest follows (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GileadGreene ( 539584 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @12:00AM (#2917865) Homepage
    It all really depends on what the purpose of your planetary science is.

    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).

  • Very cool. I think the importance of an online survey is overstated, however, as many people can hide behind their computers and feel less obligated to give truthful--and important--responses.

    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)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Crap - I usually like to think that I'm a bit brighter than the average monkey, but you just proved me wrong...I got bit by that. Grrrrr.
  • I've got terribly confused and mixed feelings about what I want NASA to do. Rationally, I know that unmanned flights are the best use of money for the scientific value. And I do generally believe in economic rationality over sentimentality. But my sentimentality says push for manned space flight.

    • Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dyolf Knip ( 165446 )
      There's lots of money to be made in space, but it's difficult to make it when everyone is way down here.

      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.

  • We have already researched what is needed for life, and if we do find one cell organisms in the Europan seas (and not exotic fish) what will we do? I can just picture it: The NASA scientists recovered the exciting Europa module. The NASA scientists examined the contents with the exciting microscope and found alien life! The NASA scientists celebrated for 3 days and nights.......and then played Monopoly and made a nice lunch.

  • PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE INSTRUCTIONS!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @12:13AM (#2917905) Homepage
    It's very easy to miss, but if you read the instructions, you'll notice that the survey answers are ranked from 10-1, and NOT 1-10. 10 is the value of least importance, and 1 is the value of most importance. I nearly submitted my results before noticing this, and I wonder how many people have already made the same mistake. It's quite possible NASA might think that nobody wants to go to Mars because everyone voted "10" for it...
  • Did anyone notice that the 1 - 10 ranking scale is backwards? You are to rate the importance of a mission from 1 - 10 .. and the fine print states that '1' is most important .. '10' is least important ..

    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? How could we tell?

  • Nanotech. Now. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by willdye ( 109847 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @12:28AM (#2917953)
    Stop wasting time and money on conventional technology, and go all out for developing molecular nanotechnology.

    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

    • I agree with your premise, but in one instance you're quite wrong.

      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)

    by rufusdufus ( 450462 )
    I thought this survey was a joke. Or rather a PR stunt. I hope it is. The multiple choice options represent no rational choices, and the number rating system is surely designed to create random survey results.
    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.
    • Well, one thing's for sure, the opinions here on slashdot seem pretty much the same as my opinion when I read and took the survey a couple of days ago.

      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.
    • Note that the survey was coordinated by the Planetary Society [planetary.org], not directly by NASA, and the Planetary Society has it's own (Carl Sagan memorial) agenda. The survey was at least a lot better than the typical "let me know whether you support or oppose the XXX program I have sponsored that brings world peace, tax cuts for all, and saves the global environment.." survey letters I get from my Congressman. But it could have been a lot better. A box to enter general comments would have been much appreciated, at the least.

  • To Quote Montgomery Burns: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @12:52AM (#2918014)
    "Since the beginning of time, man has dreamed of destroying the Sun".

    NASA should start on this task immediately.

  • Indifferent public (Score:2, Interesting)

    by S-prime ( 550519 )
    While I'm all for NASA and space exploration, I doubt this survey will have the intended effect of gauging the opinion of the general public. The people who would actually care enough to vote in something like this are typically a small minority of the (usually ignorant) public.

    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?
  • Something that people seem to be missing is that this survey has more to do with "what can NASA cut?" than what it wants to do. They are not asking for your expert opinion on how to do space science. NASA has a better idea of what constitutes a useful/good mission than you do. NASA knows that its funding is limited, though. Notice that there aren't questions for things like "Should we build the ISS?" or "Should we go to Mars?" -- projects that NASA does not want to change (except to get more funding). The questions are about things like the Pluto mission ("will anybody miss this if we dump it?"). They know they'll have to cut things under the current administration, and they need to know what will cause the biggest public outcry if they try to cut it, and what things nobody cares about.
  • Exploration of space? Why you ask? I'll tell you why. The human race is all in a tizzy about space exploration because it would mean that we may be able to eventually colonize other planets and hence, not have to worry about overpopulation. The idea of living on other worlds is very appealing to people. It allows that part of the population that has the "explorer bug" in their system to express themselves and feel fulfilled. I mean, here it is, 2002, and what are you gonna do? We've conquered every continent ('cept Antarctica) and just about done away with any semblance of wilderness. What little we have left we are scurrying like mad to protect because we are beginning to realize that crashing the ecosphere is bad, very bad.

    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....
    • There is no way we'll not have to worry about overpopulation. Overpopulation is now - it's last year, it's 50 years ago.

      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.
  • NASA should -really- start working on becoming self sufficent.

    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! :)
    • You seem to have the impression that Congress would approve a large budget for a profit-making project which NASA would then use to become independent (financially, anyway) of Congress. Did you really think that Congress would do this and let NASA keep the money? Hint, the fees paid to the USPTO and other agencies does not finance the agencies, it goes into the general fund at the US Treasury; some of these agencies more than pay for themselves, but they have to beg Congress for money for essentials.

      You also have a touching belief in the purity of spirit of politicians. Hopelessly naive, but touching.

  • a "planetary" perspective (Score:4, Insightful)

    by raduga ( 216742 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @02:38AM (#2918232)
    A lot of NASA bashing, some NASA praising in Slashdot here, tonight, but I think a great many of you are missing the point of this exercise. The survey was reportedly put together by joint effort of NASA and The Planetary Society [planetary.org], but if you read the details of just what they're surveying for, some things stand out sharply.

    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)

    by Aglassis ( 10161 )
    We should complete President Kennedy's space legacy first. It was 4 parts (Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs, Part 9):
    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]:
    This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.

    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.
  • Earth First! We'll strip mine the other planets later.
  • Space is like the Internet. It was really only accessible to government types for a long time because of the costs involved - but once commercial entities were allowed to join, the whole thing blew wide open. Yes, this was a good thing.

    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.
  • Not only is this a duplicate [slashdot.org] story, but the first one is only 6 items down in my Science stories list. People, do a search first before submitting/accepting stories.

  • 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.

  • I agree public feedback should be solicited for NASA decisions. But they lack the technical depth and imagination to convince what can be done and be done next. For example, the recently approved Kepler satellite will look for extra-solar planets by continuously gathering light from the same area of space for five years. It uses a 350 megapixel CCD array. John Q would not imagine this

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close