From what I can work out, the US National Academy of Sciences is an independent advisory organisation which receives no funding for services from the US government (it is thus pretty well independent of direct funding bias). It consists of about 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates.
It employs 1,110 staff (in 2005). It has nearly 200 members who have won a Nobel Prize. Election to membership is considered to be one of the highest honours, (not quite outranking a Nobel Prize).
So, it has recently published a report which is intended as a guide for NASA plans over the next 10 years.
The purpose is to provide NASA with direction for next 10 years of space research.
The first quest is to discover and explore the physical laws governing matter, space and time.The second quest is to discover and understand how complex systems are organized. For example, ferns grow with a distinct symmetry and structure to their leaves that are similar to the overall shape of the whole plant. This is an example of "self-similarity" in nature, which could be explored in greater detail in space.
Good to see a body, in a place of honour, acknowledging the importance of the study of Chaos and Complex Systems …. (more or less in alignment with our recent discussions about this area of Science).
The specific research areas they prioritise for NASA in the next 10 years are:
1) Soft Condensed Matter Physics and Complex Fluids
2) Precision Measurements of Fundamental Forces and Symmetries
3) Quantum Gases
4) Condensed Matter.
What does NASA stand for???.......National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Not the Institute for Quantum and Condensed Matter Physics. It's a space agency, not a physics institute like CERN or Fermilabs. It's job is to run that space program, not conduct physics experiments. The NAS is very prestigious but it's hardly independent. It has it's own agendas that are set by those that do help fund it as well as the individuals who make it up and who fund them. The government may not have any direct funding or say in the academy but it most certainly has a lot of influence over what goes on there. More than you would think. If there are any experiments that NASA can help run for that type of research, then all well and good, but it has many other things to do apart from cater to the whims of condensed matter and quantum physicists. NASA has many other priorities far more critical and necessary to work towards than those they listed.
I have had direct experience in the same functional role as the NAS, all-be-it on a vastly smaller scale, and its about as close as one can come to independence.
As you say, they are influenced by other things .. but that's a good thing.
NASA should listen to 'em all.
The NAS would serve to provide 'hints' to NASA as to where to find the 'soft-spots', amongst the power-brokers in the Government, when it comes to research funding.
NASA is more than competent enough to find those soft spots themselves. But a little more advice won't hurt.
The reason as to why it has trouble finding any money (as are many other areas of the US budget) is that the US spends so much money on armaments and its military space program that the rest of the economy suffers. Also, for the last 15 years, the US budget has had a "black hole" worth on average around $1.2 trillion per year disappear out of the coffers that can't be accounted for (that's the GAO official figures). You wonder why their national debt is so high (last year it was about $10.2 trillion). They're being done over and most of the people there are too stupid to realise it, or do anything constructive about it. They're being treated like mushrooms and have become so used to it they don't know any better.
I have to agree with Carl, NASA can assist with experiment in space or device products that help with space travel but NAS should look at some of those experiments through other agencies.
Seems like it is a money grab at this time of economic uncertainty.
Craig, just because we watched a program recently on chaos theory doesn't mean everything is chaotic.
I was watching "When We Left Earth" last night .. the part where they were trying to get Hubble into orbit, (and the initial failure of it, when they found the mirrors hadn't been ground to the correct spec … causing spherical aberration, etc ..) I really hope they get the James Webb mirrors right this time .. I don't think they'd survive another mess up like the initial stages of Hubble.
NASA has a long history of public mess ups .. Challenger, Columbia, SkyLab, Apollo 13, etc, etc .. its a pity when it happens, because the business they're in IS very public ..its a bit hard to cover up a Shuttle launch gone wrong ! They are a courageous organisation and I'd say they would be experts when it comes to knowing what it takes to survive !
I think they need to be very careful in being seen to at least pay some attention to 'independent' reports such as these, as a result of the very public record they've created.
And I agree with Carl .. if the Govt cancelled a few of those wars they've got running, there might be more for space exploration. The demise of the Shuttle program is a bit depressing. So is closing the Fermilab/Tevatron. There are lots of little 'cracks' starting to become highly visible, and I don't get a warm & fuzzy that Space Exploration is by any means, assured over the next 10 - 20 years.
Malcolm: Take a look around you .. Chaotic Systems are everywhere. We can't spend enough time pondering indeterminate, non-linear systems. They far outweigh (in frequency of occurrence in nature), any kind of linear, determinate mathematical phenomena, anyone studying at Uni would be exposed to.
We can't spend enough time talking about them. There just isn't enough time in the day !
It appears it is focused on research programs that can only be carried out on the International Space Station (ISS), due to the microgravity environment.
They are trying to get NASA to:
Quote:
"elevate" the life and physical sciences programme, to similar levels as in the late 1990s
…
Support for NASA's life and physical sciences programme has fallen steadily over the last decade. In 1996 the agency awarded around $500m for research in advanced life support and advanced space suits to fundamental physics but this fell to around $300m in 2001 and just $150m by 2010.
…
The report says that the programme now has no "institutional home at NASA" and concludes that, as a result, the agency cannot take full advantage of the laboratory environment at the ISS.
Its interesting that the report was produced by a committee co-chaired by a mechanical engineer, and a medical researcher … two very practical types.
Bert:
In isolation, your challenge may be unwinnable by those who would oppose it, but I think you may have made some off-topic assumptions about what they're really on about.
Cheers
Craig there are about four 'hubbles' pointed at the Earth. The manufacturers were not caught out until their sloppy testing was found wanting. bert
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I was watching "When We Left Earth" last night .. the part where they were trying to get Hubble into orbit, (and the initial failure of it, when they found the mirrors hadn't been ground to the correct spec … causing spherical aberration, etc ..) I really hope they get the James Webb mirrors right this time .. I don't think they'd survive another mess up like the initial stages of Hubble.
NASA has a long history of public mess ups .. Challenger, Columbia, SkyLab, Apollo 13, etc, etc .. its a pity when it happens, because the business they're in IS very public ..its a bit hard to cover up a Shuttle launch gone wrong ! They are a courageous organisation and I'd say they would be experts when it comes to knowing what it takes to survive !
I think they need to be very careful in being seen to at least pay some attention to 'independent' reports such as these, as a result of the very public record they've created.
And I agree with Carl .. if the Govt cancelled a few of those wars they've got running, there might be more for space exploration. The demise of the Shuttle program is a bit depressing. So is closing the Fermilab/Tevatron. There are lots of little 'cracks' starting to become highly visible, and I don't get a warm & fuzzy that Space Exploration is by any means, assured over the next 10 - 20 years.
Malcolm: Take a look around you .. Chaotic Systems are everywhere. We can't spend enough time pondering indeterminate, non-linear systems. They far outweigh (in frequency of occurrence in nature), any kind of linear, determinate mathematical phenomena, anyone studying at Uni would be exposed to.
We can't spend enough time talking about them. There just isn't enough time in the day !
I think NASA's management of the testing was also found wanting.
I read somewhere (from the enquiry?) that the NASA contract managers, didn't demand results from other testing apparatus, prior to accepting the mirror. If they'd followed this wise precaution, (which would not have been too hard an idea to think up, when one dealing with something as major as the Hubble), the ordeal could quite easily have been avoided via early detection.
Lets face it, something as major as the Hubble mirror messup, usually results in more than one party being nailed as 'guilty !'. (That is, of course … during the inevitable aftermath/witch-hunt/lynching party, and with the benefit of hindsight).
