4 ms·

Why is NASA's approach a good idea? If you have something cheap and repeatable, you can do a hell lot more science.

by kiba 10y ago

xenophonf 10y ago
You may not be able to do the kinds of science that will test the hypotheses you want to evaluate. We could build a lot of Zero Gradient Synchrotrons for what the Large Hadron Collider cost, but the ZGS isn't anywhere close to being powerful enough to measure the properties of the Higgs boson. Another example: For less than USD 500 an individual may outfit themselves with an optical telescope more accurate, more precise, and more powerful than anything available to Galileo or Kepler or Newton, but such a "cheap and repeatable" device will never be capable of sensing the gravitational waves detected by the LIGO and Virgo laser interferometers. Also, that $500 Celestron is only possible because of all of the one-off telescopes that came before it. You have to start somewhere, and NASA is that somewhere for space science.
- ethbro 10y ago
  I was curious how the NASA budget compared worldwide. Summary: it is in fact a lot larger (2013[1] US $40b, China $11b, Russia $8.6b, India $4.3b). [1] https://www.rt.com/usa/199480-space-budget-nasa-report/ https://www.rt.com/usa/199480-space-budget-nasa-report/
NikolaeVarius 10y ago
Just because I can get 1,000 10 dollar optical microscopes for the cost of a single 10k electronic microscope does not mean that an equal about of science can be done.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  Until someone figures out how to duct-tape 1,000 optical microscopes together in a giant interferometer, I guess.
- greeneggs 10y ago
  This paper, from 2014, says that the Hubble space telescope is oversubscribed by 4:1 to 5:1. [1] That's a higher acceptance rate than most government funding grants these days (unfortunately). Perhaps it suggests that there is still a lot of unmet demand for good science to be done with it. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3528 https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3528

Why is NASA's approach a good idea? If you have something cheap and repeatable, you can do a hell lot more science.

by kiba 10y ago

Why is NASA's approach a good idea? If you have something cheap and repeatable, you can do a hell lot more science.

You may not be able to do the kinds of science that will test the hypotheses you want to evaluate. We could build a lot of Zero Gradient Synchrotrons for what the Large Hadron Collider cost, but the ZGS isn't anywhere close to being powerful enough to measure the properties of the Higgs boson. Another example: For less than USD 500 an individual may outfit themselves with an optical telescope more accurate, more precise, and more powerful than anything available to Galileo or Kepler or Newton, but such a "cheap and repeatable" device will never be capable of sensing the gravitational waves detected by the LIGO and Virgo laser interferometers. Also, that $500 Celestron is only possible because of all of the one-off telescopes that came before it. You have to start somewhere, and NASA is that somewhere for space science.

ethbro 10y ago
I was curious how the NASA budget compared worldwide. Summary: it is in fact a lot larger (2013[1] US $40b, China $11b, Russia $8.6b, India $4.3b). [1] https://www.rt.com/usa/199480-space-budget-nasa-report/ https://www.rt.com/usa/199480-space-budget-nasa-report/

NikolaeVarius 10y ago

Just because I can get 1,000 10 dollar optical microscopes for the cost of a single 10k electronic microscope does not mean that an equal about of science can be done.

CamperBob2 10y ago
Until someone figures out how to duct-tape 1,000 optical microscopes together in a giant interferometer, I guess.
greeneggs 10y ago
This paper, from 2014, says that the Hubble space telescope is oversubscribed by 4:1 to 5:1. [1] That's a higher acceptance rate than most government funding grants these days (unfortunately). Perhaps it suggests that there is still a lot of unmet demand for good science to be done with it. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3528 https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3528