Sciene Nerds: What planet can we, theoretically, live on?

Close enough to everybody. Obviously it's an exaggeration since blind people exist, and people without access to televisions exist.
You don't need to have a huge marketing budget if you're continuously giving updates that get people talking. A "whoop-dee-do" moon landing? Really? That moon landing is what got so many influential scientist excited and interested in space exploration. And it was a major feat at that time, especially with the technology we had back then. Like I said before, of course the chances of habitable planets being somewhere out in an infinite universe is highly probable. So I wouldn't call that a scientific achievement. What now? Keep throwing out more artist renditions of what they may look like, like in the link you posted? They didn't have actual telescope footage of the planets, at least give us that.

I already told you some of the easiest things they can do. Get people involved. Live stream projects, have a live discussion board where people can ask questions, learn the processes and the game plans of current and upcoming missions. The only live stream they have is of the ISS and every now and then astronauts playing with water in zero gravity or eating food out of a tube. With the resources we have on the moon and what we could gather from astroids not everything would have to come from earth, and it would take less propulsion power to get off of the moon than it takes getting out of the earths atmosphere and gravitational pull, just the practice of mining in space and building in space would be a great start.

And one of this things I would most like to see is some domestic competition for NASA. Not necessarily government-funded multibillion dollar space programs, but researchers who can compete in finding new and better ways to explore space.
Progress in aerospace is so slow, and it has trickled down to a crawl.

Nooblord said:

I already told you some of the easiest things they can do. Get people involved. Live stream projects, have a live discussion board where people can ask questions, learn the processes and the game plans of current and upcoming missions. The only live stream they have is of the ISS and every now and then astronauts playing with water in zero gravity or eating food out of a tube.

Click to expand...

If you're talking about NASA or SpaceX, they DO livestream, and quite often. They only do it on Facebook, but they livestreamed like 5 times within the past week. 2 were rocket launches, 1 was an announcement about the new system that could "sustain life" and then a few hour long discussion about this new system. They had another stream at SpaceX but I didn't check to see it.

Of all the videos on NASAs Facebook in the past month, the longest one was 48 minutes. The majority of them are clips that are less than 5 minutes. If you could link me to the stream that was a couple hours, that'd be great.

What are some of the progressive, and realistic goals have they been discussing their progress on? Because knowing that there could be habitat planets in the universe, again, isn't anything we can take action on at this time.

Nooblord said:

Close enough to everybody. Obviously it's an exaggeration since blind people exist, and people without access to televisions exist.
You don't need to have a huge marketing budget if you're continuously giving updates that get people talking. A "whoop-dee-do" moon landing? Really? That moon landing is what got so many influential scientist excited and interested in space exploration. And it was a major feat at that time, especially with the technology we had back then. Like I said before, of course the chances of habitable planets being somewhere out in an infinite universe is highly probable. So I wouldn't call that a scientific achievement. What now? Keep throwing out more artist renditions of what they may look like, like in the link you posted? They didn't have actual telescope footage of the planets, at least give us that.

I already told you some of the easiest things they can do. Get people involved. Live stream projects, have a live discussion board where people can ask questions, learn the processes and the game plans of current and upcoming missions. The only live stream they have is of the ISS and every now and then astronauts playing with water in zero gravity or eating food out of a tube. With the resources we have on the moon and what we could gather from astroids not everything would have to come from earth, and it would take less propulsion power to get off of the moon than it takes getting out of the earths atmosphere and gravitational pull, just the practice of mining in space and building in space would be a great start.

And one of this things I would most like to see is some domestic competition for NASA. Not necessarily government-funded multibillion dollar space programs, but researchers who can compete in finding new and better ways to explore space.
Progress in aerospace is so slow, and it has trickled down to a crawl.

Click to expand...

NASA probably could do a better job of outreach to the public, but it's not like they're doing a terrible job. The raw telescopic footage of the TRAPPIST system is probably pretty boring to look at, so they likely went with renditions to make it look more interesting and easier to understand for people without an astronomy background. They should have the raw imagery available for people who are interested in it, but most people will not find it interesting since it will look a bunch of random dots and colors to them.

Landing on the moon was a great scientific achievement for 1969. It's not a great achievement for 2017 which is why we don't go there anymore. I don't know of anything useful to mine from the moon, and even if there was something useful to mine from it, we'd probably have to waste more resources to set up the infrastructure to mine there and transport the resources than we'd get from the moon. Yes, launching something from the moon is easier because it has lower gravity, but it still has a strong gravitational pull itself so the difference (about 75% less I think?) is again not worth the resources it would take to set up shop there.

Astronomers and aerospace engineers have important jobs to do, so they can't spend a ton of time streaming stuff for the masses to view. Private competition for NASA sounds good, but the type of work NASA does isn't profitable. A lot of the private companies are doing stuff like creating space rides for super rich people to pay for, not the good-for-mankind sort of stuff.

Progress in aerospace has slowed down because it's no longer a priority. Back in the Cold War era, the U.S. wanted to stay ahead of the Soviet Union in the space race because they thought it was vital for national defense. Therefore, a lot of federal funding went to NASA and space programs and many scientifically-minded people wanted to get into the space race. Today, NASA receives a lot less federal funding and a lot of the potential aerospace talent is doing other stuff like developing the next iPhone.

I think a space exploration revolution is something NASA should be striving for. The moon has some pretty valuable and useful resources on it, and I think it will be a great investment in the long run.

The stream doesn't have to interfere with their work. They can have interns or maybe retired volunteers moderate the feed/discussions. Just showing what is happening live and letting people experience and discuss those achievements/eureka moments is good enough.

They can definitely do a much better job creating a strong brand image for themselves. And maybe more people than just science enthusiast or hipsters with "my space" dad caps and vintage NASA tees will have incentive to care and create a demand for more space research/careers/technology.

It'd be cool if Disney collaborated with NASA and made a section of their theme park dedicated to space exploration. That would create some amazing publicity.

Nooblord said:

I think a space exploration revolution is something NASA should be striving for. The moon has some pretty valuable and useful resources on it, and I think it will be a great investment in the long run.

The stream doesn't have to interfere with their work. They can have interns or maybe retired volunteers moderate the feed/discussions. Just showing what is happening live and letting people experience and discuss those achievements/eureka moments is good enough.

They can definitely do a much better job creating a strong brand image for themselves. And maybe more people than just science enthusiast or hipsters with "my space" dad caps and vintage NASA tees will have incentive to care and create a demand for more space research/careers/technology.

It'd be cool if Disney collaborated with NASA and made a section of their theme park dedicated to space exploration. That would create some amazing publicity.

Click to expand...

We could go back and forth on the moon thing. People a lot smarter than you and me are making the decisions, and currently there is no momentum for another moon landing.

People in general usually don't want to be filmed when they're working. It's easier to do your job when you don't have the distraction of cameras around you. I'm not saying that NASA should be a black site where no one knows what's going on, but they don't need to be putting out daily feeds for people to watch.

I think we have a disagreement on what NASA's mission is. I don't think NASA needs to focus on creating a strong brand image for themselves. Their brand is what they do. People know about that moon landings and the ISS. A lot of people were able to find the news about the TRAPPIST-1 planets because NASA has built enough of a reputation that when they send out a press release about their discoveries, most major media outlets report on it. I don't think it's a worthwhile use of NASA's time and resources to collaborate with Disney or other organizations to market astronomy. Some people are intellectually curious about science and outer space and some people are not. Going on a few rides at Disney World is probably not going cause many people to commit to careers in aerospace. NASA is relatively lean with the way it uses its budget, and taxpayers would probably get upset if more of that money is used for marketing and other projects that don't directly relate to research and technology. If most people think that marketing and branding are worthwhile uses of money, then NASA should receive more funding to do that stuff.

The reality is what NASA really needs is more $$$. It's hard to attract talent when the pay isn't as good as other industries. NASA receives only a fraction of what it got in terms of percent of GDP during the Cold War. The public is basically saying that NASA isn't important, and it's kind of become a self-fulfilling prophecy with the funding cuts. No amount of live-streams or theme parks is going to fix that problem.

It's a great way to archive their work for both them and the public. Researchers are used to recording their experiments. The moon idea is just a suggestion, if they can come up with another "short" term goal that is more productive, that'd be even better.
You say "NASA" like I'm expecting all the scientist to drop everything and start tweeting excessively and posting selfies on instagram. They can easily hire interns that would do anything for an opportunity to work for them even if it's just keeping their social media active, and engaging.

NASA doesn't have to spend anything, lol. Disney has more than enough money to get it done if they think an idea like that could work.
The Disney thing could easily create a lot of jobs for scientist and engineers, especially since a lot of kids grew up with Disney, that'dbe a great opportunity to get kids excited about STEM fields.

What I'm getting from you is that the general public doesn't care about NASA or space exploration so no one wants to help fund it, hence NASA should just keep doing what they're doing until they're completely irrelevant, and have absolutely no money for anything.
And you oppose trying to get the general public interested, and trying to create a demand, by building a brand image that could be done pretty effectively with no spending.

That's a pretty pessimistic mindset, that I guess a lot of people share. But we'll find out where that gets us eventually.

mars

Nooblord said:

It's a great way to archive their work for both them and the public. Researchers are used to recording their experiments. The moon idea is just a suggestion, if they can come up with another "short" term goal that is more productive, that'd be even better.
You say "NASA" like I'm expecting all the scientist to drop everything and start tweeting excessively and posting selfies on instagram. They can easily hire interns that would do anything for an opportunity to work for them even if it's just keeping their social media active, and engaging.

NASA doesn't have to spend anything, lol. Disney has more than enough money to get it done if they think an idea like that could work.
The Disney thing could easily create a lot of jobs for scientist and engineers, especially since a lot of kids grew up with Disney, that'dbe a great opportunity to get kids excited about STEM fields.

What I'm getting from you is that the general public doesn't care about NASA or space exploration so no one wants to help fund it, hence NASA should just keep doing what they're doing until they're completely irrelevant, and have absolutely no money for anything.
And you oppose trying to get the general public interested, and trying to create a demand, by building a brand image that could be done pretty effectively with no spending.

That's a pretty pessimistic mindset, that I guess a lot of people share. But we'll find out where that gets us eventually.

Click to expand...

are you still ****ting on NASA ?? its been two days now

Nah, I'm just waiting on NASA to get its diaper changed.

Nooblord said:

It's a great way to archive their work for both them and the public. Researchers are used to recording their experiments. The moon idea is just a suggestion, if they can come up with another "short" term goal that is more productive, that'd be even better.
You say "NASA" like I'm expecting all the scientist to drop everything and start tweeting excessively and posting selfies on instagram. They can easily hire interns that would do anything for an opportunity to work for them even if it's just keeping their social media active, and engaging.

NASA doesn't have to spend anything, lol. Disney has more than enough money to get it done if they think an idea like that could work.
The Disney thing could easily create a lot of jobs for scientist and engineers, especially since a lot of kids grew up with Disney, that'dbe a great opportunity to get kids excited about STEM fields.

What I'm getting from you is that the general public doesn't care about NASA or space exploration so no one wants to help fund it, hence NASA should just keep doing what they're doing until they're completely irrelevant, and have absolutely no money for anything.
And you oppose trying to get the general public interested, and trying to create a demand, by building a brand image that could be done pretty effectively with no spending.

That's a pretty pessimistic mindset, that I guess a lot of people share. But we'll find out where that gets us eventually.

Click to expand...

NASA already archives a lot of data. Spreadsheets and written articles may not be sexy, but they often do a better job of providing information than videos. They could hire interns, but they probably don't want to have interns just running around recording stuff. It's more people that they have to keep track of and they probably don't want to be using resources on interns who are there to be publicists. Their interns should be there to assist and learn in research and development capacities, not for social media experiences.

Disney could easily create space attractions on their own. Like you said, Disney has the money and NASA makes a lot of information publicly available, so why doesn't Disney just go ahead and do it? It's because people don't go to Disney to learn about the real world, they go there to see Disney's fantasy world. Disney doesn't want to invest in that.

The general public doesn't care that much about science in general; that's how a guy who thinks climate change is a hoax made up by the Chinese managed to become POTUS. It's sad, but true. NASA shouldn't dumb it down for these people though. If that happens, NASA basically becomes Disney trying to sell outer space as an amazing fantasy world instead of providing hard information about what's out there. Space exploration is like cancer research; it's not always fun and cool, but people do it and care about it because it's important. I'd rather see NASA die doing its mission than become something different just to please the impatient public.

How much public interaction from NASA do we really want, though? Do we want them to just say "hey, we're busy atm" or do we want them to write a grime track every week ???

- - - Post Merge - - -

I wrote a planet rap song in my head and I'm not even gonna post it in here because I still hold some form of dignity.

More excuses. Video archives would add to the credibility, when we can actually see what happens when it happens. Of course they'll still have spread sheets and written documents. The interns wouldn't be in the way, lol. A camera can easily be set up, who's suggesting that they walk around with smartphones in everyone's faces?
They could still have interns for that as well. Also, it doesn't have to be a paid internship, and you do know that there are people out there who specialize in improving a companies online presence, which again is extremely vital in today's day and age.

Disney has already teamed up with engineers at Chevrolet to make the Test Track ride in Epcot, getting the general public to become interested in in engineering. It's interactive, educational, and fun. And it isn't a fantasy ride btw, lol. Imagine what they could do with space exploration.

Once again, what I'm getting from you is that since the general public does't care, we shouldn't do anything about it and not try to reach out to a younger generation that will become our future. Rather, just let NASA go on doing things the way they have been and continue to allow their relevance to dwindle away. Sorry, I don't find that productive, but hey, these are only opinions.
I'd just like to see more of an effort in getting people excited about scientific advancements. Maybe I'm in a minority. Oh well.

- - - Post Merge - - -

forestyne said:

How much public interaction from NASA do we really want, though? Do we want them to just say "hey, we're busy atm" or do we want them to write a grime track every week ???

- - - Post Merge - - -

I wrote a planet rap song in my head and I'm not even gonna post it in here because I still hold some form of dignity.

Click to expand...

NASA can hold back on their cringey rap videos, that definitely isn't helping the cause. If anything, those are a waste of money and an effective repellent to the young folk.
Unless they learn how to do it right. Like the Hamburger Helper mixtape.