somebody please starighten out space science priorities

[R1]

From time to time I get more and more scared at seeing how slow our space program is<br />here is a link from Space dot com on how we might have to move the earth to save it from a<br />growing sun<br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/earth_move_010207.html<br /><br />now, for example, instead of putting 1 billion $ to take a few instruments to that Pluto distraction<br />why can't we apply that billion and many others to starting to <font color="yellow">learn</font><br />and practice moving the asteroids and comets properly?<br /><br />I think this should be a priority, not only can an asteroid or comet vanish humans if we don't develop that<br />maneuvering technology and ability ASAP(not to mention the needed billions ),<br />but we may have to move earth with these rocks and comets.<br /><br />Maybe what is needed is some experts developing a chart of how and when and <br />almost most importantly how much $$ it's really going to take to do the hundreds of missions <br />planned, most of them I am willing to bet will not help us efficiently in moving asteroids and comets,<br />let alone moving the earth itself. I don't think such chart exists, honestly I don't think<br />anybody has applied highly professional and expert intellect to properly prioritizing things.<br /> <br />edit: especially money<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

My first response, don't be too scared about how slow our space program is.<br /><br />Secondly, this is a magazine article in effect. Sometimes writers will write the most bizzare stuff just so they can get their ideas seen. It sells magazine articles as well. Of course, technically this is a posting on the web but it reads like many magazine articles I have seen.<br /><br />Attention grabbing headline:<br />Recipe for Saving Earth: Move It <br /><br />Article iteslf:<br />Earth's distance from the Sun could be increased by 50 percent in just a few billion years.<br /><br />Conclusion:<br />Magazine article is stating a worst case scenario based on theories that the sun is getting hotter. We don't know if the sun is getting hot enough to warrant moving the earth and chances are. It won't do any good anyway. Why? Because if we can tell the sun is getting hotter after only a few years of study. Its increasing heat levels will bring its temperature to dangerous levels long before the earth can be settled into a new orbit.<br /><br />Spending what would amount to probably trillions of dollars on untested technologies based on what some scientists think might happen would only put our space program in a much harsher light if the predicted heating of the sun failed to take place or was less than expected.<br /><br />John1R:<br />I don't think such chart exists, honestly I don't think <br />anybody has applied highly professional and expert intellect to properly prioritizing things.<br /><br />Me:<br />Your right. I'm not aware of such charts either and thats because there are currently much bigger fish to fry including global warming. Even global warming is not getting much of what could be called an actionable response.<br /><br />From the web article:<br />"This is not an urgent problem," Adams stressed, adding that the researchers merely wanted to prove -- on paper -- that such a scheme was possible. "And we are in no way advocating policy."<br /><br />Me:<br />Now were getting to the real mea <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[R1]

for the most part I agree with you, except that whether or not the suns exhaustion will affect the earth,<br />we need to start a program of being able to maneuver these near earth objects, so<br />that's my particular emphasis.<br /><br /><br />If it means cancelling the Pluto instrument shipment to save a billion then I'm all for it, and put<br />that billion into the first massive object maneverability project. My emphasis is due to the fact<br />that space projects are too slow to develop, money is scarce and/or strung out as far as Pluto,<br /><br />I think a reasonable timetable would indicate the near earth object project should have already begun,<br />in the event that <font color="yellow">readiness</font>is something that has a chance of being vital to success and<br />world protection.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Why are so fired up to cancel the New Horizons mission to Pluto?<br /><br />It's been launched, and is now past Jupiter on it's way.<br /><br />Find some other place to save the money, please. Some of us want to see what we will discover there!!<br /><br />Edit, I don't know the budget for New Horizons. Does anyone have the figure handy? I'm sure it's MUCH less than a billion bucks.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Find some other place to save the money, please. Some of us want to see what we will discover there!! </font><br /><br />Not me. That money was pissed away. I agree with John1R, that NEO's are far more important. Pluto is just the largest of the trans-neptunian bodies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

See, this is the essential conundrum in space science prioritizing. Everybody has their own favorite targets, so it is absolutely certain that not everybody can be pleased.<br /><br />Me, I think it's important to study trans-neptunians for the information they might give us on a) possible resources for when we move beyond this blue orb, and b) comets. NEOs aren't the only things that can kill us, after all, and we'd have a much harder time detecting a comet with our name on it, so to speak, than we would in finding a killer NEO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well, we might be as successful at detecting it, but there would be a lot less we could do about it.<br /><br />Phizzix, again <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

We've landed on Eros and collect samples from Wild 2. I view that as great progress. We need to learn more about what these critters are made of and how they operate before try to manipulate them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Not me. That money was pissed away. I agree with John1R, that NEO's are far more important. Pluto is just the largest of the trans-neptunian bodies.</i><br /><br />We have had quite a few to NEOs and other small bodies. We have had no mission to the TNBs. A mission is long over due. Besides, as far as most people are concerned, Pluto is a planet (along with several other TNBs). <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Me, I think it's important to study trans-neptunians for the information they might give us on a) possible resources for when we move beyond this blue orb, </font><br /><br />Not to be a pessimist, but I would substitute the word "when" with the word "if". As one prominent Astronomer said, "there are no hardware stores in space when things break". And EVERYTHING for human occupancy that we've put into space, has broken in one way or another. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Last cost figures I saw shortly before launch;<br /><br />NH cost: $675 million, of which the launch was $205 million <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

That's pretty close to a billion.<br /><br />Personally I don't really care one way or the other about were that billion is put as long as it is something constructive. NASA is based on discovery first and foremost and not some kind of asteriod defence service. That kind of program would blow NAS's budget for a long time.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[R1]

I don't think that figure includes running that program once NH gets there, if it is, then there's probably going to <br />be more money needed.<br /><br />But I'm pleased to know that some are aware of a conundrum in priotizing projects after all.<br /><br />At first I thought the need to move to other stars was too far in the future, but I think that has<br />more of a chance of failing altogether, if we can't fix the earths probable demise. <br /><br />In my opinion<br />we are extremely lucky here on this very lucky planet at a very lucky time, we're starting to feel<br />complaints and fears about the planet rising <font color="yellow">one</font>egree at a time, but the first few<br />stars we try to move humanity may have a worse predicament, not just 3 or 4 degree changes a year, but<br />there could be hundreds of other problems that are just worse than here.<br /><br /><br />So I just think there definitely needs to be a better priority list on space projects. By the way I can't<br />remember the exact number of years but I think somewhere between 10 and 30 years there's already<br />another big object headed for earth (that we know of, we really don't know how many more yet),<br />and even if it barely misses us, it's supposed to return and hit us or something like that.<br /><br />well NASA might nt be responsible for a defense service, but I think at some point in time<br /> the scientific intellect is what helps humanity, but some of the bigger things defending<br />humanity just won't happen without readiness, and without using time and money wisely.<br /><br />edit: Maybe it's not anything NASA is doing right or wrong, but what the scientific intellect is doing <br /> right or wrong..<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>