Does Science Need the "Big Challenge?"

Programs I suggest to fill the focused work gap are near Earth orbit space infrastructure.

Ceding of the Higher Ground is not a particularly good idea as far as US national security is concerned, no matter what treaties may exist on paper.

I'm just speechless. I would really love to hear some of your answers... I think you should start a new topic on this.

I can't believe that people gave you a GA for any of this.

I'm ok with 4, 5, and 6, but 7 is a joke right?

and number one and two is related to your number three?

you must have a pretty big horse.

It depends on your perspective.

This is really a play out of Hitler's playbook, but when you look at all the crap that goes on in the world, some of it makes a certain kind of sense.

If you think people just joke about this you would be sadly mistaken. There are real politicians and pundits who think stuff like this.

google Eugenics.. which was rampant in the 30's, and you will see it is alive and well.

Chris

It was intended as a good humored joke in regards to things that likely have no real and present answers thus the reasoning that it could take all of this century to work them out.

And as far as what I get GA's for I too question many/most of them. But then its not me who gives them to me.

"1. Prove which religion is the correct one."

That will never happen as science doesn't believe in any religion, and God would not allow any religion to be proved - He requires faith.

"2. Prove that global warming is or is not happening or that it may soon be getting colder now"

That's already been done, but covered up so grants will be made available.

"3. Find a cure for stupidity and arrogance. Or at least find the link between them and cure that."

Cure stupidity and you will have more engineers, but more arrogance. You can't expect a government project leader to even understand this, much less cure it.

"4. Create an honest politician who can actually follow through on his or her promises."

Good luck on that one and the rest!

We should concentrate on near earth orbit for now, but remember that Obama is probably a one-term President and, if he hasn't destroyed our economy, the next President may restore the moon project.

Near Earth ... meh! What's to be accomplished there? Apart from telescopes, I mean.

Private entrepreneurs will soon offer (relatively) cheap flights, so use them for transport. Apart from that, use the International Space Station for experiments, but there's not a whole lot for it to accomplish beyond that.

The Moon ... double meh! Too expensive to lift stuff out of its gravity well, so unless we discover some sort of reactionless (i.e., non-rocket) drive, there's no point. I mean, what can we do that's useful there? Make space-cement out of moon dust?

The places to go for: the moons of Mars. Low gravity means little fuel expense lifting off from them, soperhaps something useful could be done there like low-gravity research, prodution of stuff that can only be made in low gravity, whatever.

But what really makes my heart beat faster is the asteroids. Going to some of them would be the ultimate in going to low-gravity environments. As a bonus, if we can work out how to get the energy needed, some could be hollowed or 'caverned' out and made into space stations. Some could be mined for minerals, which could then serve for space construction ... no more need to lift materials from Earth's deep gravity-well. Sending unmanufactured materials to Earth would be easy, too ... they'd be dropped down the Sun's gravity-well , so all it would take would be to point the materials in the right direction and give them a shove Sunward (OK, a bit more effort and attention would be needed, but that's the general idea).

So: Mars moons and asteroids for now. Taking the time to get there could drive astronaut crews mad cabin-fever style, but if it can be done that's were we should go. All bets are off if we invent reactionless drives, though. :-)

Cheers! DZ

P.S. Send Sarah Palin to Pluto.

The big challenge is to get self-sufficient on energy. We should have started that in the USA 40 years ago, but we let big oil kill the initial effort. The USA CAN do this using the already identified renewable sources, but for short term we should also bulid several more nuclear powered generators. We have enough weapons-grade fuel to run our Nukes for a couple of hundred years, and that fuel is already having to be hidden and shielded, so why not find a way to use it?

American Politics...

We did "start it" almost 40 years ago...

33 years ago this August, Jimmy Carter created the Department Of Energy. One of the explicit goals touted was to minimize or eliminate our dependency on foreign energy sources.

That's worked out well, hasn't it! Like owning a boat, pouring money into a hole in the ocean.

I would vote we abolish DOE, take the money, and invest it in private enterprise energy generation projects.

Hooker

I think the subsequent administration, tore the solar panels off the White House roof.

Not saying you are wrong now, for times change and sometimes ossify what has gone wrong.

In answer to the question, about whether or not Science needs a big challenge, it would appear when you look at past governments and empires, science sort of did need to know what to do, and be challenged to actually do things like go to the moon.

-or save the nation from enemies.

It does get mixed up and bits here and bits there may well not come together unless outside demands on the "institution" are made.

I have not thought about the Department of Energy in a long time.

What exactly are they doing these days?

Not to be too flippant, but:

As far as I can tell they are soaking up billions in tax dollars and heavily subsidizing the ethanol industry.

On the + side (my opinion) they seem to be looking heavily at biomass (algae) to energy conversion. I hope this is true.

Beyond that, I'm not too sure. They tout lots of good stuff on their website, but I have almost zero confidence in them.

Hooker

Advance the unlimited resources of earth. Develop a program that allows all of the human race to contribute to and take advantage the unlimited prosperity of earth. Overcome the paradigm of limited resources. Take advantage of a spectacular resource, its people.

agreed.

Szwasta ... that's called people having jobs and being paid, right? :P

DZ

NO

The USA will be a 3rd world country in 10 years at the rate we are going now.Remember what Kennedy said:("Ask not....), well today, it is just the opposite.People are asking what their government can do for them, instead.

And they are voting for the ones that promise them the most.

The country will fail due to fiscal irresponsiblilty.40 percent pay no taxes at all.6 Taxpayers are pulling a wagon with 4 freeloaders riding in the back.And the burden is increasing.Soon, there will more riding than pulling.The middle class is disappearing.

And now we have a president that wants to abandon a moon base mission?Another opposite of Kennedy's dream.The moon is literally coated with Helium 3, which is very rare on earth, but is an ideal nuclear fusion fuel:produces less neutrons, more energy:Much more efficient than Hydrogen.It is worth more than it's weight in gold, and could give a good return on investment.The lunar rock samples were loaded with it.

That will be the next Gold Rush ,and we are not going to be in the race? What an idiot!

The country that gets there first and sets up will have a definite advantage.If not us,we may be subservient to another Middle East scenario.

"Bye Bye Miss American Pie"

In a hundred years, the moon will look entirely different when viewed from the Earth.It will have glittering domes covering the entire surface,and it will appear as a diamond in the sky.No dark craters, all covered with monocrystalline domes, constructed by nanobots that will work with the lunar material to create the structures.

And there will not be an American flag anywhere.

IMHO

Will this industrialization of the moon cause "lunar warming"?

Warming? Hardly.But piles of detritus from inhabitation? Yes.Unless by that time we have figured out how to recycle everything, down to the last molecule.

I figure that genetics will have advanced to the point that low gravity will not adversely affect the human body, which will, by that time, be a hybrid carbon and silicon based organism.Computers and humans will have melded into one improved species, thinking a million times faster than we do now.But wisdom? I am afraid there may not be a gene for that rare quality that would enable mankind to properly utilize the available potential for good.

Photsynthesis perfomed in your skin? Why not. No need to eat for energy.No need to raise livestock or cultivate the land for grain.The Earth could return to the pre-civilization state of ecology, leaving the carbon based animals to enherit it (the meek?).

Mining of raw materials will be from the asteroid belt.Nickle and iron rich asteroids, and comets for water.Solar energy is unlimited, so PV could provide all required electrical needs on the moon.

And man could spread out onto Mars and beyond, possibly to the moons of Saturn or Jupiter.

Just think how much we could mess up given a larger pallet!

Interesting use of words: "If not us,we may be subservient to another Middle East scenario." - its ok for everyone to be subservient to the USA but not the otherway around. Do you really wonder why there is so much tension in the world with an attitude like that.

Go ahead and blame Obama for all your(our) woes, afterall he is the one that landed the US in its current situation (I don't think so), don't blame the last gunslinger that was president, afterall he was a great success for the US and the rest of the world.

IMHO the US is one of the greatest and worst places to live. The US has so many resources and the will to succeed but some of the presidents (not Obama I believe) have really let you down. I for one hope that the US once again becomes a world leader (at the moment they still are but are falling slightly off the pace at an alarming rate)

"People are asking what their government can do for them, instead."

Obama and the democrats are asking that too!

Science does not need a "big goal". Science is an end in itself. Despite popular misconception the Scientific Method isn't Hypothesis, Experiment, Analyze Data, Report Findings, Produce Technology or Event to Justify.

The point of science is to systematically investigate nature to further human-kinds knowledge. The "big event" like a "moon landing" or "humans on mars" is a way for the nonscientific mind to understand the significance of science. To put it more clearly, it's the show we scientists put on to remind the general public why what we do is important, since apparently 5000 years of written history, cell phones, computers, running water, airplanes, electricity, and air conditioning clearly isn't enough.

Of course if you really wanted progress you could stop cutting our funding, but then, that's action, not talk.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the "Show" is important to accept as a necessary evil, if you want general support for science, and its institutions.

People follow heroes and are primarily emotionally motivated. For many regardless of whether or not it is ideal, pursuits that confer to the individual status in society are more desirable than those pursuits of anonymity, and lesser status.

Therefore there is a place and purpose for the Famous Scientist, who puts on a show.

Show Business, is a good corrallary itself, for while we see the actors, and they are the famous ones, we wouldn't recognize the cameraman, or the producer, who actually make the movie.

Few writers are so famous and pictured that we would note their company across the room in a restaurant or at a party, without an introduction.

It does take an odd combination of skills and desires to be the face of a discipline such as Science. Not to mention the bravery when you consider Martyrs of Science executed for Heresy by Religious Institutions such as the Catholic Church.

So while Science may well exist without a need for the Big Challenge, people sure seem to need to feel part of something bigger than themselves.

Sometimes you get to make up the game, and sometimes you have to play the one that everybody else is playing, whether you like it or not.

Seriously we need more nuclear power plants, mass transportation that is affordable, and need to bring jobs back to the US.

This is very disappointing. It's not so much that we need to get back to the moon, it's the fact that having a specific space exploration goal will help general scientific innovation. So much discovery can be credited to the 60s space race, above and beyond those technologies that were specifically used in space.