A LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT NASA SCIENCE

[Lionel Mandrake]

Following is an excerpt from the newsletter WHAT’S NEW
by Robert L. Park, Friday, 3 Apr 09, Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

Last month you said the space agency is drifting and
needs a mission "appropriate for the twenty-first century." The new
Administrator, you said, should think about "the next great adventures and
discoveries under the NASA banner." I know you’ve been busy with G20
stuff and haven’t had time to name this visionary, so in an effort to help
What’s New did the thinking for whoever it will be:

1) Astronauts are a
relic of the 1960’s "space race" and a major obstacle to the continued
exploration of space. Therefore the ISS, which serves no useful purpose
anyway, should be given to China and the crew sent home on the Soyuz.
Maybe astronauts could be awarded medals for courage in fighting the Cold
War.

2) Global-warming critics insist climate change is the result of
solar variations and is not anthropogenic. Therefore, NASA should move
with due haste to locate DSCOVR at the unique Lagrange-1 vantage point to
resolve this question.

3) The greatest quest in science is to find life
to which we are not related. Therefore, NASA’s robotic exploration of the
solar system should be expanded to include the ocean moons of Jupiter.
There should also be a ban on human visits to any planet that might harbor
life; we’re crawling with bugs.

4) The great discovery of this century is
the existence of planets around other stars. The bad news is that we
can’t get to an exoplanet. The good news is they can't get here. Therefore
we should employ the huge advances in optical technology to develop a new
generation of advanced space telescopes capable of examining exoplanets
for evidence of life.

http://www.bobpark.org

[soothsayer]

1. nasa will get funded because it's a military thing, not a science thing,

and we also use it to funnel money into black ops and to israel and godnoze where else. don't worry about nasa, it's fine

[Lionel Mandrake]

4. NASA is not part of the DoD

It's true that many of the astronauts have a military background, but the agency is not military. The USA uses other conduits to fund black ops.

NASA does a lot of science and engineering, but the manned space program, which has little to do with science, has the highest priority.

The Idiotic Space Station (ISS) has no discernible mission other than public relations.

The best part of NASA is the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is responsible for the robotic spacecraft that have generated almost all the scientific results attributable to NASA.

[Posteritatis]

9. Yes, yes, it's a tool of The Jooz, keep telling yourself that (nt)

[Lionel Mandrake]

13. Are you bluish?

You don't look bluish.

[Canuckistanian]

2. I disagree with point #3

The "greatest quest in science is to find life to which we are not related"

Science is no such thing.

Science is the search for verifiable truth, that's all.

There are no "greatest" goals. There are no particular priority interests in the origins or nature of life compared to "other places".

It would be good science, but not the ultimate goal.

[Lionel Mandrake]

3. So do I

I also disagree with point #4, but I thought it best to quote everything Bob Parks had written about NASA this week, rather than picking out the parts I agree with, which are points #1 and #2.

[Bill McBlueState]

5. We definitely need more space telescopes

Hubble has to be one of the best uses of federal money ever. Twenty years of leading-edge astronomy, pretty much for free compared to the other things we spend our money on.

[Muttocracy]

6. I love that the little Mars rovers are still going too

I generally roll my eyes at most of the space program as a waste of money, but they're pretty cool.

At least, I assume they're still going.

[Lionel Mandrake]

12. AFAIK the rovers Spirit and Opportunity are still okay. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

7. the future of the human race depends on it.

thats how i feel about space exploration and eventual colonization.


it must happen.


regardless of global warming and our ability to kill ourselves...
we know for a fact that the sun will die.
the planet will die.
these things WILL happen.

the survival of our species would dictate finding somewhere else to live.

[Lionel Mandrake]

10. There is no need to start colonizing the Galaxy right away.

What we know about hominid evolution suggests that humans, by any reasonable definition, have existed for at most a few million years. To visualize the changes, check out the reconstruction of Australopithecus afarensis, a human ancestor that lived about 3 or 4 million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

How many DUers would like a hot date with "Lucy"?

It's a reasonable extrapolation that in another few million years our descendants, if any, will not be what you would call human. Homo sapiens will have evolved into another species by then, even if we don't speed the process up by genetic engineering.

The Sun, on the other hand, will continue burning hydrogen, and thus supporting life on Earth, for another few BILLION years. That's at least 1000 times as long as there have been human beings on this planet.

[Posteritatis]

8. #1 is silly, #2 makes sense, #3 is overstated but I agree and I can't support #4 enough

Didn't Bush axe most of the exoplanet finders in the last few years? That man makes my angry gland twinge.

[Lionel Mandrake]

11. Reasonable DUers can disagree about points 1, 2, 3, and 4,

but we're unanimous about W.

Here's hoping the USA will survive the disasters of 2000 and 2004.