Will LISA use the facilities of this network for signal processing or will it create a separate (though maybe potentially shared) one?
Alan
It's too soon to say. LISA is still a decade away, and their data processing plans are still in flux. However the LISA search problem has a lot in common with the LIGO/GEO/VIRGO pulsar search problem, so I wouldn't be surprised if public distributed computing is a viable approach.
Do you mean "at least a decade," or "a decade"? If the latter, can you say what your source is for that? The last I heard, LISA, along with most other serious science and real exploration, is being shelved so that NASA can pursue the important goal of playing golf on Mars.
External politics, from what I can tell. "One plain fact is NASA can simply not afford to do everything our many constituencies would like us to do." This seems correct. Unfortunately, science is just getting the left-overs after the shuttle/ISS/CEV programs are funded.
External politics, from what I can tell. "One plain fact is NASA can simply not afford to do everything our many constituencies would like us to do." This seems correct. Unfortunately, science is just getting the left-overs after the shuttle/ISS/CEV programs are funded.
Nasas budget is posted here Budget It looks to me that science is getting about 1/3 of every dollar Nasa has, keep in mind the Hubble servicing mission depends on the shuttle mission budget which is not shown in the science budget. How much of this money should science get? All of it? 1/2 of it?
I read a quote a while back that stated something to the effect that the public interest in space was oceans wide but only 1" deep. I took this to mean alot of folks were interested but only for $1.00 each.
Tax payers as a whole will pay to see us on Mars. They like hubble visible light images. Maybe I should say We like hubble visible light images.
Step out of your imediate friends who are also interested in science and go to your home town. How many want us on mars vs how many care about gravity waves? Those hometown people are footing the bill.
I am not advocating quit pushing forward, ALL I am saying is that the tax payers money is the tax payers money. You want more money going into science, market science better. Or take a third and make it work.
Tax payers as a whole will pay to see us on Mars. They like hubble visible light images. Maybe I should say We like hubble visible light images.
Step out of your imediate friends who are also interested in science and go to your home town. How many want us on mars vs how many care about gravity waves? Those hometown people are footing the bill.
I do not think you can send people to Mars on a spacecraft propelled by chemical rockets. It would take too long a time and the astronauts would be subjected to a heavy dose of radiation. Also, what if one of them gets ill or starts acting unreasonably? Do you kill him and throw him into space? What you need is a nuclear powered rocket, but how many people would accept its risks? There was a project for a nuclear powered spacecraft in the Sixties (Project Orion) but it was killed by the USA/URSS agreement not to perform nuclear atmospheric tests. See "Disturbing the universe", by F.J.Dyson.
Tullio
money. You want more money going into science, market science better.
I agree, although for obvious reasons this is difficult to do. And it's not exactly like there was a national referendum on Bush's long-term "vision" (never mind an informed one that made clear to people that, apart from the near-pointlessness of the goals, the whole thing will just be a colossal waste anyway when some future president has to cancel it).
money. You want more money going into science, market science better.
I agree, although for obvious reasons this is difficult to do. And it's not exactly like there was a national referendum on Bush's long-term "vision" (never mind an informed one that made clear to people that, apart from the near-pointlessness of the goals, the whole thing will just be a colossal waste anyway when some future president has to cancel it).
Do you believe that the human race will always and forever be confined to earth?
LIGO, GEO, and LISA
)
It's too soon to say. LISA is still a decade away, and their data processing plans are still in flux. However the LISA search problem has a lot in common with the LIGO/GEO/VIRGO pulsar search problem, so I wouldn't be surprised if public distributed computing is a viable approach.
Bruce
Director, Einstein@Home
RE: LISA is still a decade
)
Do you mean "at least a decade," or "a decade"? If the latter, can you say what your source is for that? The last I heard, LISA, along with most other serious science and real exploration, is being shelved so that NASA can pursue the important goal of playing golf on Mars.
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8689
Speaking of which, do you or anyone else have any idea how secure the funding is for Advanced LIGO?
RE: http://www.newscientist
)
"One thin dime" = internal politics?
RE: http://www.newscientist
)
"One thin dime" = internal politics?
edit - sry about the double post
RE: "One thin dime" =
)
External politics, from what I can tell. "One plain fact is NASA can simply not afford to do everything our many constituencies would like us to do." This seems correct. Unfortunately, science is just getting the left-overs after the shuttle/ISS/CEV programs are funded.
RE: RE: "One thin dime" =
)
Nasas budget is posted here Budget It looks to me that science is getting about 1/3 of every dollar Nasa has, keep in mind the Hubble servicing mission depends on the shuttle mission budget which is not shown in the science budget. How much of this money should science get? All of it? 1/2 of it?
I read a quote a while back that stated something to the effect that the public interest in space was oceans wide but only 1" deep. I took this to mean alot of folks were interested but only for $1.00 each.
Tax payers as a whole will pay to see us on Mars. They like hubble visible light images. Maybe I should say We like hubble visible light images.
Step out of your imediate friends who are also interested in science and go to your home town. How many want us on mars vs how many care about gravity waves? Those hometown people are footing the bill.
I am not advocating quit pushing forward, ALL I am saying is that the tax payers money is the tax payers money. You want more money going into science, market science better. Or take a third and make it work.
RE: Tax payers as a whole
)
I do not think you can send people to Mars on a spacecraft propelled by chemical rockets. It would take too long a time and the astronauts would be subjected to a heavy dose of radiation. Also, what if one of them gets ill or starts acting unreasonably? Do you kill him and throw him into space? What you need is a nuclear powered rocket, but how many people would accept its risks? There was a project for a nuclear powered spacecraft in the Sixties (Project Orion) but it was killed by the USA/URSS agreement not to perform nuclear atmospheric tests. See "Disturbing the universe", by F.J.Dyson.
Tullio
Maybe this is off topic, but
)
Maybe this is off topic, but given the recient posts about the mars mission and its methods, my question is this.
Whatever happened to the muon drive?
RE: money. You want more
)
I agree, although for obvious reasons this is difficult to do. And it's not exactly like there was a national referendum on Bush's long-term "vision" (never mind an informed one that made clear to people that, apart from the near-pointlessness of the goals, the whole thing will just be a colossal waste anyway when some future president has to cancel it).
RE: RE: money. You want
)
Do you believe that the human race will always and forever be confined to earth?