S
saveourspaceprogram
Guest
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":3jfqtf91 said: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.
flyer456654":8dp7fl86 said: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.
flyer456654":1vmdr2ws said: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.
MeteorWayne":1tr4ul1f said: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
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:"
And a Lunar Base is more of a step in that direction than an asteroid joy ride.sftommy":10422hs1 said: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.