Your NASA dollars at work...

If you ever wonder if mission creep has defused NASA's ability to focus
its financial resources on space, or if it tries to be all things to all
people- like any swollen bureaucracy- have a peek at this news article,
and who co-sponsored this vital space-related research:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0202070018.htm

Pat

In fairness -- what was the nature of the sponsorship? Maybe it was just access
to certain lab facilities. Incidentally, as a former herpetologist, I found the
article quite interesting.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33° 27' 59" N, 117° 05' 53" W

Curtis Croulet wrote:

In fairness -- what was the nature of the sponsorship? Maybe it was just access
to certain lab facilities. Incidentally, as a former herpetologist, I found the
article quite interesting.

I'm a bit of a amateur herpetologist myself (I had a pet Caiman- they
don't react at all well to being petted); the article was interesting,
as I thought the Varanus-Mosasaur-Snake hypothesis was a neat solution
to a vexing problem in evolution. But what I wanted to point out is
that even if NASA's contribution to this research was as limited as you
state (I do note that they got put ahead of the National Science
Foundation in who the research was done by, though) is that the
evolution of snakes is far outside the purview of NASA; and if such
research is to be done, it should be done by some institution- private,
academic, corporate, or governmental- other than NASA; isn't this more
of a job for someone in the areas of evolutionary biology or
paleontology s than for a organization dedicated to aerospace research?
I fear that the ability of NASA to throw a great deal of money (by
science research standards) at things that really have no connection to
their stated mission, in the quest for good publicity and high public
visibility makes them an easy mark for a great deal of funding and
research requests in fields which they should have no interest. Under
Dan Goldin, NASA seemed to spread itself out in many strange and
fruitless directions (Space Camp and robotics submarines zooming around
under ice caps, as well as walking for a few feet down the interior of a
Antarctic volcano immediately come to mind) more like a amusement park
than a government institution. If they want to get back on track
regarding space exploration on a reasonable budget, they need to do some
serious reconsideration and pruning in regards to what they consider
worthy research to work on and fund; and snake evolution isn't a
pressing concern in regards to space exploration.

Pat

In article , Pat Flannery wrote:
If you ever wonder if mission creep has defused NASA's ability to focus
its financial resources on space, or if it tries to be all things to all
people- like any swollen bureaucracy- have a peek at this news article,
and who co-sponsored this vital space-related research:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0202070018.htm

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrobiology
Institute?

(Googling on that gets you some interesting press releases, BTW)

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/ (which is v. interesting looking, is it not?)

"NAI carries out collaborative research and education in astrobiology,
the interdisciplinary science that seeks answers to these fundamental
questions. It supports investigation of these issues on Earth and serves
as a portal to space for the scientific community."

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/ discusses their goals.

They do have a biological/evolutionary remit - it's hard to see
precisely which bit this slots into, but it doesn't seem desperately out
of the beaten track (they do seem to prefer things without, you know,
multiple cells)

The two authors are given as from "NASA Astrobiology Institute and
Department of Biology" at psu.edu - Professor Hedges seems to be the
chap to contact if you want to ask for details, [sbhl at...] so go and
annoy him with enthusiastic comments about snakes and picky queries
about specific funding codes... ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:32:10 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

If you ever wonder if mission creep has defused NASA's ability to focus
its financial resources on space,

....Since when have creeps like Maxson, Guth and Haller affected NASA?

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

...Since when have creeps like Maxson, Guth and Haller affected NASA?

OM


HO HO HO OM at it again.....

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
HO HO HO OM at it again.....

Well, the ellipse at the end was too long, but I sometimes do it as well.
Otherwise, this is a perfectly spelled sentence. Copy Boy must be
practicing.

Scott Hedrick wrote:

Well, the ellipse at the end was too long, [...]


You mean ellipsis, I think. A long ellipse is a conic section whose
eccentricity is a tad less than one. Like the orbit of Halley's comet.



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Pat Flannery wrote:


(snip) Under
Dan Goldin, NASA seemed to spread itself out in many strange and
fruitless directions (Space Camp and robotics submarines zooming around
under ice caps, as well as walking for a few feet down the interior of a
Antarctic volcano immediately come to mind)

Pat, I agree with most of this. But it seems to me research in
teleoperated robots that can endure extreme environments would be very
useful for space exploration.

As much as I like lizards and snakes, I don't want NASA spending money
on their study. But I would like to see Nasa funding research on robotics.



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Hop David wrote:


Pat, I agree with most of this. But it seems to me research in
teleoperated robots that can endure extreme environments would be very
useful for space exploration.

As much as I like lizards and snakes, I don't want NASA spending money
on their study. But I would like to see Nasa funding research on
robotics.


I'd do it the other way around...first, decide which planet or moon you
want to go to, and its prevailing conditions in regards to gravity,
temperature, atmospheric composition and pressure. Then decide what type
of terrain you are going to traverse on that body to meet your mission
science requirements (Sandy? Rocky? Ice? Liquid?). Having determined
these requirements, then make your decisions regarding the type of
propulsion you want your rover to use (Wheels? Legs? Treads? Flying?
Floating?); and get to work on that specific type of rover vehicle for
that specific mission. Dante was designed to work in 1G and rocky
inclined terrain- the only place you would be likely to run into those
types of conditions in the solar system is on Venus; and Dante had
neither the ability to withstand the pressure or heat of that environment.
Building and testing robotic probes on Earth that operate only in
earth-like conditions is about a relevant to real space exploration
conditions as getting a Radio Shack radio-controlled truck and running
it around at the local slag heap on the grounds that you are accurately
simulating Lunar conditions...except for the gravity, temperature,
vacuum, and radiation.
Poor Dante had to string a cable out behind it as it moved, which would
severely curtail it's ability to explore space due to the difficulty of
preventing the cable from tangling as the Earth and target planet
orbited around the sun. About the only worthwhile thing I saw coming out
of the Dante project was the knowledge that Martian War Machines and
Imperial AT-AT Walkers should present little threat to humanity in the
future, as it appears that mechanical legs really suck in comparison to
wheels or treads as a means of moving a death machine around. ;-)

Pat