The future of NASA

[saveourspaceprogram]

Ok I just wanted to take a poll here. I’m just wondering what would you like to happen with the space program and what project would you get behind and support.

 

[flyer456654]

Well, personally I want NASA to have three goals all prioritized in this order:

1) Develop technology to place men/women in Permenant habitats on celestial bodies- this would allow for a great deal of science to be accomplished, testing technologies for mars, and setting up massive telescopes for planet discovery none of which can be done without boots on the ground.

2) Stimulate the private market for commercial launchers - This would allow great cost reductions to launching into LEO and further. It will also allow the greatest driving force in the world, profit, access to space. This alone might stimulate private ventures to the moon, mars, and astoroids. This also will assist in the development of an orbital infrastructure.

3) Push the boundries - I believe that every 5 years, 30-50 new technologies should be presented to nasa and 3-5 of these technologies should be worked on by Nasa engineers. Essentially, establish the Space equivilant of DARPA.

Nasa's direction should always be to push the boundries and to never get mundane in the activities it does. Nasa's greatest attribute is its ability to inspire people around the world. Push the boundries should be the ultimate goal.

 

[planetling]

Well, personally I want NASA to have three goals all prioritized in this order:

1) Develop technology to place men/women in Permenant habitats on celestial bodies- this would allow for a great deal of science to be accomplished, testing technologies for mars, and setting up massive telescopes for planet discovery none of which can be done without boots on the ground.

2) Stimulate the private market for commercial launchers - This would allow great cost reductions to launching into LEO and further. It will also allow the greatest driving force in the world, profit, access to space. This alone might stimulate private ventures to the moon, mars, and astoroids. This also will assist in the development of an orbital infrastructure.

3) Push the boundries - I believe that every 5 years, 30-50 new technologies should be presented to nasa and 3-5 of these technologies should be worked on by Nasa engineers. Essentially, establish the Space equivilant of DARPA.

Nasa's direction should always be to push the boundries and to never get mundane in the activities it does. Nasa's greatest attribute is its ability to inspire people around the world. Push the boundries should be the ultimate goal.

ALL of the above, and:

4. (related to "NASA's direction" comment above) Specific goals and time lines and more effectively communicate that to the general public.

5. NASA TV should provide more advanced programming to keep the public interest and sights set high. Repeats of history class are fine, but not for the majority of the time aired. Rather than constantly see what NASA HAS done, it's time to move forward and show what NASA IS doing and plans to do. Not everybody visits NASA.GOV or subscribes to magazines, so flipping the channel to NASA TV should be much more inviting.

I think with the new budget and direction NASA should really make a concerted effort to address 4 and 5.

 

[flyer456654]

I agree on 4. They need to have a train schedule. If anyone is a business major, look up Medtronic Case Study to get what i'm talking about.

Number 5 should be outsourced. Why NASA even has a TV channel I don't understand. I think that this would do better as a discovery:NASA channel. Discovery channel will really be able to help Nasa's public image.

Other than that i like our 5 point plan

 

[MeteorWayne]

Discovery channel posts so much unscientific crap it has no credibility at all. It is entertainment fodder designed to get ratings, that is all. Just like NatGeo and the "Science" channel.

Let NASA TV show real science, and leave entertainment channels to get ratings.

 

[flyer456654]

Meteor,
I agree that discovery doesn't post the best of stuff all the time. But they have lots of viewers. Ratings are important to TV. Why doesn't Cspan have millions of viewers? Because its boring has cow manure. Why does Nasa TV only attract those interested in space? Because its boring has cow manure. Why does discovery channel get many viewers? Because it is interesting.

In order to inspire people, Nasa TV needs to have people watching it. If I wasn't a member of 3 space websites, i wouldn't even know spacex exists. Heck most of my friends don't even know it exists and this is a MAJOR problem. Fine i agree it should be for real science, but the entertainment side has to be there too. Get views interested with a theoretical approach. Use real theories to explain things. Maybe say what would happen to earth if the sun expanded to red giant? Its still real science, its still interesting, and best of all it will have viewers.

The problem with every space agency is that it is BORING! We need to put some entertainment into them. This will get more eyes watching them and more people interested, involved, and fighting for NASA to have more bloody funding. Give up NASA tv to a private venture writing in the contract to keep only real science and real theories presented. Then present them in a fun way.

Hopefully you get where i'm coming from.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Meteor,
I agree that discovery doesn't post the best of stuff all the time. But they have lots of viewers. Ratings are important to TV. Why doesn't Cspan have millions of viewers? Because its boring has cow manure. Why does Nasa TV only attract those interested in space? Because its boring has cow manure. Why does discovery channel get many viewers? Because it is interesting.

Yes, hyperbole is interesting, but it ain't science.

In order to inspire people, Nasa TV needs to have people watching it. If I wasn't a member of 3 space websites, i wouldn't even know spacex exists. Heck most of my friends don't even know it exists and this is a MAJOR problem. Fine i agree it should be for real science, but the entertainment side has to be there too. Get views interested with a theoretical approach. Use real theories to explain things. Maybe say what would happen to earth if the sun expanded to red giant? Its still real science, its still interesting, and best of all it will have viewers.

You have just descibed NASA TV, and NOT Discovery channel. Theoretical is one thing. Wild speculation is quite another.

The problem with every space agency is that it is BORING! We need to put some entertainment into them. This will get more eyes watching them and more people interested, involved, and fighting for NASA to have more bloody funding. Give up NASA tv to a private venture writing in the contract to keep only real science and real theories presented. Then present them in a fun way.

Which would turn out just like NASA TV, since it would only present real science, not overblown entertainment.

Hopefully you get where i'm coming from.

Hopefully you get where I am coming from.

 

[sftommy]

How about the next season of "Survivor" being in LEO?

Or maybe the next season of "Lost" being in space?
<smile>

Pop media is tough to break into, Colbert is as close as they've come in many years.
Interesting train of thought; to find a way to bring NASA deeper into mainstream pop culture and maybe more personally relevant to the average American. The technology is there, might even be a profitable business plan in the idea.

 

[flyer456654]

Have you ever heard of "the earth without people"? Yes, this show is a little exaggerated BUT it does allow the viewers a science approach toward the decay of infrastructure. Perhaps "the universe" rings a bell. Yes, this is a little different and once again exaggerated at times, but is based in real science. Both of these shows received great ratings, why because they showed science in a fun light. They explained things by dumbing them down. Should NASA tv have extremely intelligent shows, absolutely. But during prime time, they should appeal to the mass public (when there isn't something exciting going on in space...and i don't mean some astronaut floating around in space perhaps learning how to pee). Appealing to the public is hard yes, but if NASA can do it then they will have mass appeal...and as romans used to say "the mob runs all." I am just saying that if you (as in anyone on this board) wants Nasa to get the funding they deserve, then you must have the dumb masses on your side. If that means dumbing down and making NASA TV 50% serious science and 50% superficial, than I say do it. I absolutely don't want to sacrifice science for pop media, but if the backing of the public gets more science accomplished, then I will take NASA TV dumbing down shows and appealing to pop media, then take that sacrifice so that more ambitious goals can be met.

 

[SteveCNC]

You make an interesting point flyer , just last night a friend of my sons came over , he's 25 and I've know him since he was in 8th grade . He's in the AirForce and he flies a predator drone but anyway he gets out this march and he's not re-upping again so he want's to work for an aerospace firm and he only knew about boeing and lockheed martin . I started naming off the ones I know of and where they are and such he had no clue there was so much going on . I can't help but wonder how it is people don't know about these things . Nasa needs a better PR person ! I know it's not nasa's responsibility to inform the public of the goings on at private companies but it seems like a lot of people are completely out of touch with what goes on with reguards to space .

 

[MeteorWayne]

Have you ever heard of "the earth without people"? Yes, this show is a little exaggerated BUT it does allow the viewers a science approach toward the decay of infrastructure. Perhaps "the universe" rings a bell. Yes, this is a little different and once again exaggerated at times, but is based in real science. Both of these shows received great ratings, why because they showed science in a fun light. They explained things by dumbing them down. Should NASA tv have extremely intelligent shows, absolutely. But during prime time, they should appeal to the mass public (when there isn't something exciting going on in space...and i don't mean some astronaut floating around in space perhaps learning how to pee). Appealing to the public is hard yes, but if NASA can do it then they will have mass appeal...and as romans used to say "the mob runs all." I am just saying that if you (as in anyone on this board) wants Nasa to get the funding they deserve, then you must have the dumb masses on your side. If that means dumbing down and making NASA TV 50% serious science and 50% superficial, than I say do it. I absolutely don't want to sacrifice science for pop media, but if the backing of the public gets more science accomplished, then I will take NASA TV dumbing down shows and appealing to pop media, then take that sacrifice so that more ambitious goals can be met.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see no benefit in engaging people with BS, which is what most of Discovery etc. is based on. I'd rather stick to real science. Suckering people in with non-science, to me, is worse than giving the ignorant public exactly what they deserve.

And yes, I'm a registered curmudgeon.

Wayne

 

[flyer456654]

I'm happy that we can agree to disagree. Thats why i love this forum.

 

[DarkenedOne]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see no benefit in engaging people with BS, which is what most of Discovery etc. is based on. I'd rather stick to real science. Suckering people in with non-science, to me, is worse than giving the ignorant public exactly what they deserve.

And yes, I'm a registered curmudgeon.

Wayne

Well MeteorWayne, I cannot help but wonder what you are talking about. I have watched those shows, and the question becomes what is wrong with them. They do often like to explore far out ideas such as colonization of space and faster-than-light travel, however I do not believe they are inaccurate when it comes to talking about todays capabilities.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Then you're not paying attention

 

[sftommy]

DarkenedOne may have hit a spark

The future of NASA is colonization.

The near terms missions are solving resource acquisition, appropriate infrastructure, and target acquisition.

Video gaming and movies are two successful types of media engagement to the mainstream, to pop culture.
They've helped to make NASA's missions comprehensible to people with little science background, people who vote on a hope.

 

[planetling]

I think all of you have great points.

Variety on tv is not completely wrong. With all of the nonsense and violence shows aired on tv, Discovery, NatGeo, Science Channel and at times even NASA TV do end up having decent programming.

What is important, is to strike interest among varied viewers. If that means far-fetched futuristic shows or repeats of history lessons, I guess whatever floats someones boat. It may fuel the desire for someone who might be interested to start digging a little deeper. My gripe with NASA, being the world leader in space exploration and technology, should put 2 and 2 together and provide something more substantive for serious/advanced viewers on one of their channels.

I also agree that if it were not for some of these forums I would never have known about SpaceX or the many other companies involved in space. Better public education is definately needed, for whoever the potential audience may be.

 

[aaron38]

First I want NASA out of the LEO business so they can focus on pushing out the frontier. NASA's only job is on the frontier and I have three big ones for them.

1) As NASA and JPL are really good at building rovers, I would task them with building a Lunar Ice Miner. And I'm not talking about something the size of a pushcart. I mean a real bulldozer with a big ass shovel. If it can't dig down 6 feet it's worthless. It doesn't even need a brain, it can be tele-operated from here. Land it at the pole and find that ice and see if we can use it. There's really no point in doing any lunar mission planning until that's done.

2) Fly a sample return mission to Mars. Beyond the science, the real goal is to test landing something big and heavy on Mars, and to prove out all the ISRU fuel production equipment for the risk adverse crowd.

3) Give the hippies the finger and build a real space nuclear reactor. Outfit it with a VASIMR drive and an instrument package and send it to Jupiter. Now you have JIMO resurected and the reactor/drive for a manned Mars mission gets a nice long flight test.

 

[EarthlingX]

www.businessofgovernment.org : The Business of Government Hour with Dr. Robert Braun (audio interview)

 

[EarthlingX]

nasawatch.com : Concerns Raised Over House NASA Authorization Bill

By Keith Cowing
on August 31, 2010 8:37 PM

Letter to Rep. Gordon Regarding House Science Committee Authorization Bill As It Relates to NASA

"President Obama's new strategy revitalizes and expands our investments in technology, commercial spaceflight, student research, and robotic exploration precursors. These are the key elements of the President's new plan for NASA that must be retained in any consensus solution reached by Congress and the White House. These investments will benefit all parts of our space program. Indeed, human space exploration beyond Earth orbit can only be truly sustainable and affordable if commercial spaceflight to low Earth orbit and innovative research and development efforts are pursued as well. We feel that the following programs, which are substantially underfunded in the current House Science Committee authorization bill, are especially critical:"

 

[kk434]

Building the Terrestial Planet Finder would finally answer the question if there is a earth like exo planet. This is the only telescope capable to detect a planet like this and not only gas giants and planets with 5 day orbits. Finding a earth like planet with an atmosphere would be an earth shakeing event.

 

[rockett]

DarkenedOne may have hit a spark

The future of NASA is colonization.

The near terms missions are solving resource acquisition, appropriate infrastructure, and target acquisition.

And a Lunar Base is more of a step in that direction than an asteroid joy ride.

There is nothing about that idea that makes any sense at all, because we could gather just as much info with robotic missions at far less cost. The only thing to be gained by sending humans there is the trip...

 

[vulture4]

I agree that a probe is perfectly adequate for investigating an asteroid. Japan is already planning Hayabusa II.