Tales of the Heliosphere

Here's a story about a study that correlates high levels of the hormone oestradiol and infidelity in women.

"The researchers found that a woman's oestradiol level was positively associated with self-perceived physical attractiveness. Women with a higher oestradiol level also reported a greater likelihood of flirting, kissing and having a serious affair (but not a one-night stand) with a new partner.

"Oestradiol levels were negatively associated with a woman's satisfaction with her primary partner.

"'Our findings show that highly fertile women are not easily satisfied by their long-term partners and are motivated to seek out more desirable partners,' Durante explained. 'However, that doesn't mean they're more likely to engage in casual sex. Instead, they adopt a strategy of serial monogamy.'" (Here.)

Because, you know, human beings merely serve our chemicals and DNA.

-tdr

Labels: Behaviorism, Biology, Science, Scienceism, Sex

Steve Running, a professor of forestry from the University of Montana, is profiled in a recent article. (Here.) He's a global-warming scientist in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But, apparently, he's moving on.

"In the next year, Running hopes to slightly change the scope of his research again. He’s begun to take an interest in how socioeconomic issues such as population and economic growth affect climate change. That’s in part because of invitations he’s received to speak to groups such as Planned Parenthood.

"Running was puzzled by the invitation at first, but soon realized that population growth affects the quantity of emissions released into the atmosphere.

"He’s also gearing up to push the idea of a no-growth economy in terms of consumption. With the current recession the nation is facing, he said, maybe it’ll cause people to return to a lifestyle 'that maybe we never should have left.'"

Well, at least he said "maybe." Maybe he's waiting to find out whether the evidence from his scientific research supports his no-growth political agenda.

What is it about scientists today that they believe their role, as scientists, is to shape society rather than simply to describe the world as it is? It's a free society and scientists have as much right as anybody to express their political or moral opinions. Just don't call it science. When scientists use words like "should" or "ought," they're no longer talking science. They're talking politics or morality.

-tdr

Labels: Environment, Science, Scienceism

The Bad Astronomer has been taking issue with John McCain's references to Barack Obama's earmark request for "the overhead projector" at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago. (Here.)

The Bad Astronomer is right that astronomy is really cool. And McCain's use of the term "overhead projector" doesn't come close to describing the complex piece of machinery used by the planetarium. Also funding the Adler Planetarium is worthy as is replacing its projector. But all that doesn't mean the funds have to come from an earmark in the federal budget. It will benefit Chicago if the planetarium's projector gets replaced. But it's no great loss to the country that the Adler Planetarium didn't actually get the federal money that Obama tried to steer his hometown's way.

Chicago is a big and world-class city. Or so I've heard from all the Chicagoans living here in San Diego. Even accounting for the ex-pats here in sunny Southern California, Chicago has lots of people still living there, many of them quite wealthy. There are many business there, some of them quite big. Better the people who live in the area, and the people who use the planetarium, pay to replace the projector than the federal taxpayer.

McCain has a point about the problem with federal budget earmarks. There are millions of projects in the United States worthy of funding. The federal government can't fund them all. The earmarks process results in funds going to those projects supported by politicians and their powerful friends. It's only happenstance that the project is worthwhile.

So, the Bad Astronomer does a public service by including a link on his latest post for sending private donations to the Adler Planetarium. Think of your donation as a private earmark. This is something I'm sure McCain himself would endorse.

In that same spirit, here's a link to San Diego's Air and Space Museum and here's one to San Diego's Reuben H. Fleet Science Center and here's another. Both museums in San Diego promote science, astronomy included, technology, and space and air flight. Both are worthy of your private earmarks.

-tdr

Labels: America, Astronomy, Elections, Politics, Scienceism

Today's exciting space news is that scientists from Brown University have discovered evidence of water on the moon. Here's the headline at Moondaily.com: "Brown-Led Team Finds Evidence Of Water In Lunar Interior." And here's another headline at the Scientific American website: "New scans show evidence of water on the moon."

Wow! This is exciting news! It's time to start the lunar colonization programs! Let's see what the story at Moondaily.com says:

"A Brown University-led research team has for the first time discovered evidence of water that came from deep within the Moon, a revelation that strongly suggests water has been a part of the Moon since its early existence -- and perhaps ever since it was created by a cataclysmic collision between the early Earth and a Mars-sized object about 4.5 billion years ago.

"In a paper published in the July 10 issue of the journal Nature, the team, led by Alberto Saal, assistant professor of geological sciences at Brown, believes that the water was contained in magmas erupted from fire fountains onto the surface of the Moon more than 3 billion years ago." (Here.)

Oops. Never mind. Three billion years ago.

No doubt this will thrill planetary scientists throughout the solar system. But really thrilling news would be that water remains inside the Moon today. If that were the case, perhaps residents of future lunar bases or colonies could drill deep into the Moon and mine the water.

There is speculation about the current presence or absence of water on the Moon in the story.

"About 95 percent of the water vapor from the magma was lost to space during this eruptive "degassing," the team estimates. But traces of water vapor may have drifted toward the cold poles of the Moon, where they may remain as ice in permanently shadowed craters."

We've heard this speculation before and maybe the fact that the Moon held water 3 billion years ago increases the likelihood that there is water ice there now. Let's hope so. Water's pretty darn heavy and a ready supply on the Moon could be very useful.

-tdr

Labels: Luna, Science, Scienceism

Eris is an icy dwarf planet that isn't a real planet because a convention of scientists decreed it so. Although Eris is a dwarf we now know it's more massive than Pluto. It's actually about as massive as all the asteroids combined. Here's some more interesting information about Eris the planet that's not a planet. It's round, it's got an atmosphere albeit a frozen one, it's own tiny moon, and a rocky surface. It also revolves around the Sun not around something else. So, it's not a moon. (Here.) That sounds a lot like a planet to me.

-tdr

Technorati: astronomy, planets.

Labels: Astronomy, Planets, Scienceism

Today brings another rash of stories about the discovery of evidence that Mars was once wet, really wet, and maybe had life, too. (Here, here.) Millions of years ago, no wait, that's two billion years ago, Mars had an ocean.

The most interesting part of today's discovery, and the bit that really matters, doesn't come until the seventh paragraph of this Space.com story on MSNBC.com. (Here.)

"Somewhere along the way to toppling over 50 degrees to the north, Mars probably lost some of its water, leaving the Deuteronilus Ocean's shoreline exposed. 'The volume of water was too large to simply evaporate into space, so we think there is [sic] still some subterranean [sic]* reservoirs on Mars,' [Taylor] Perron said."

Okay, I'm being harsh. That part about Mars toppling 50 degrees is kind of interesting, too. Nevertheless, that happened a heck of a long time ago.

This story and all the other Mars stories that regularly get reported are part of what's wrong with the mainstream view of space. Space travel or exploration, however you want to describe it, is viewed as being all about science. And so what exciting news do we learn? Mars had water billions of years ago, it toppled, we don't know why, but it probably has something to do with something going on inside the planet way back then. And some scientists are really excited about it. My own personal guess is the Big Topple might have had something to do with the formation of that giant impact crater, Hellas Basin. But what do I know? I'm not a scientist.

To be frank, I'm not nearly as interested in the ancient history of Mars as I am in whether the Mars of today offers any promise of being able to support humans by the time we finally get our slowpoke butts over there. Today's stories about Mars suggest it does.

Yet here we've got a story about Mars and the part where the scientist says there's probably the remnant of an ocean under the ground on Mars just gets swept by as if it means nothing. But if humans ever want to visit Mars and stay there for long periods of time, or even, here's a thought, make the planet another home for humanity, the fact that an ocean of water may still exist deep below the surface of our dry and dusty neighbor is the most important piece of Mars news we learned today. It's a shame the discovery doesn't get reported that way.

-tdr

* Subterranean?

Technorati: NASA, space, mars, science.

Labels: Mars, Media, Scienceism

Science Daily has a story today about "surprising" new evidence discovered by the Spirit rover that Mars used to be warm and wet. (Here.) Didn't the rovers provide this evidence already? Like two years ago, maybe?

We all know that Mars used to be warm and wet already. I've done public talks about Mars since the rovers first landed on Mars and audience members typically know about the water on Mars discoveries. How exactly is it that three years on it's dramatic and surprising that more evidence of past water is discovered? Is funding for the rover missions on the chopping block or something?

Wake me up when there's more evidence of present water on Mars. Or some other material that would be useful for humans once we get our behinds in gear and send some astronauts there to make the red planet our own.

Come to think of it, the Science Daily story is actually about the discovery of a patch of silica. Silica is a useful raw material for manufacturing different things like glass, porcelain, food additives, ceramic re-entry tiles on the Space Shuttle, among others. (Here.) Now that's interesting. There's stuff on Mars we can use to make things. Too bad the story wasn't about that.

-tdr

Technorati: NASA, Mars

Labels: Mars, NASA, Scienceism

Space.com is polling readers for the top space story of 2006. The top 10 so far can be seen here. They are about what you'd expect with the hardy and totally lovable little Mars Rovers coming in first, followed by the decision to save Hubble, and NASA's return to flight.

In my view the top space story of 2006 is Bigelow Aerospace's successful launch and continued operation of its inflatable prototype for a private space station. This story signals the promise of private human space operations in orbit. (Here.)

Second would be NASA's awarding of the COTS contracts, which demonstrates the government's move towards reliance on private space companies for operations in lower Earth orbit. (Here.) Tied for second would be the Democratic Party's takeover of the House and Senate, which has immediately imperiled NASA's plans for human space operations. (Here.)

Third is publication of the United States new space policy document which makes official the view that space is a place within America's security and economic spheres of influence. This is a baby step in the direction of undermining the current unrealistic legal regime that governs human activities in space. (Here and here.)

The most ridiculous space story of 2006 is number 8 on the Space.com list. That story is the decision by astronomers to adopt the neighborhood bully definition of planets and fix the Solar System's planetary population at 8. The story gets my vote for most ridiculous story because it reveals how out of touch scientists are from the general public. (Here.)

What's your opinion?

-tdr

Republished once to fix links.

Technorati: NASA, space, astronomy.

Labels: Leviathan, NASA, News, Scienceism, Space Captains Of Industry

The Bad Astronomer (here) makes a good point about how foolish it was to drive a golf ball from the International Space Station. There's a lot of space debris in orbit already without adding a hurtling golf ball into the mix. Even if it is for only a couple of days.

The possibility of stupid commercial activity in space prompts him to say this in the same post:

"Anyway, I fear this will not be the last of the dumb things done to make money in space. I’m not sure how much to worry about space banners, for example, which will be big lit-up banners in orbit hawking commercial products; this has been proposed realistically and could do serious damage to ground-based astronomy. The list goes on and on. I’m not a big fan of regulating what goes on in space, but if garbage like this golf shot keeps up, I may change my mind."

Actually, giant billboards in space would ruin the night sky for all of us, not just ground-based astronomers. The aesthetics of the night sky would be ruined and people all over the world would be a captive audience whose only option to avoid the advertising would be to look at the ground not the sky. Who wants that?

To some degree we are all exposed to advertising we'd rather avoid. We voluntarily expose ourselves to most of that advertising by reading newspapers and magazines and using TV, radio, and the internet. Billboards differ from media advertising because we are exposed to billboards just by walking or driving around in public.

Space billboards would be so much more intrusive than ordinary billboards. Here on Earth a billboard may be visible for a block or two or maybe for several miles on the highway. Space billboards, on the other hand, would be visible over vast reaches of Earth to millions of people at the same time. That difference in degree is a significant intrusion on people's ordinary lives and justifies legislation against space billboards, even for merely aesthetic reasons.

There may be environmental reasons to ban space billboards as well. Depending on their brightness, the proliferation of space billboards could light up the night in ways that ruin the environment for nocturnal animals. It's true that cities pollute the sky with their light at night but there are weighty considerations of safety and necessity to justify the amount of light created by cities despite the environmental impact. Because orbital billboards would fly over cities and the dark countryside their impact on the environment would be widespread. Moreover, the potential benefits from space advertising likely would not justify the negative impacts on the environment and the night sky.

Space advertisers may have free speech rights on their side, but even free speech can be regulated by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. The negative so far outweighs the positive that it seems entirely reasonable to ban obtrusive space billboards visible on Earth.

For a more in depth analysis of legal issues surrounding regulation of space billboards read this Note (here) in The Federal Communications Law Journal and this online article (here) by Jimm Erickson at the website of law professor David D. Friedman. According to the Erickson article Congress has already acted to prevent obtrusive space advertising from ruining the night sky. A US launch license can be denied to any spaceflight sending "obtrusive advertising" into space.

-tdr

Technorati: Astronomy, Science, Environment, NASA, Space.

Labels: Aesthetics, Lawyers In Space, Leviathan, Scienceism

Greek astronomers are riled about the free and easy naming of Trans-Neptunian Objects in recent years. They are specifically unhappy with the unofficial name of 2003 UB313, "Xena." (Here.) Greek chauvinism, sure, but they have a point. How about that dwarf planet, "Quaoar." Go ahead, pronounce it, I dare you. But if the IAU's definition of planet remains the law, it won't matter whether dwarf planets get their names from Greek mythology or not. Nobody will care one way or the other because the discoveries won't be real planets.

-tdr

Labels: Scienceism

Jeff Foust gives a nice summary of the problem with the IAU's new definition of planet. (Here.) He says that the problem faced by the astronomers is that the term "planet" is too general. He argues that astronomers would have been better off not trying to define "planet" and instead should have described categories of planets.

"One might imagine three broad classes of planets: 'gas giant planets' for gaseous worlds like Jupiter, 'terrestrial planets' for rocky worlds like the Earth, and 'ice planets' for worlds like Pluto. Under such a system we would not have an eight- or nine-planet solar system, since 'planet' alone would have no official meaning: instead we would have a solar system with four gas giant planets, four (or five, depending on how Ceres was classified) terrestrial planets, and several ice planets, including Pluto. (One could add up the number of three different types of planets to determine the total number of “planets” in the solar system, but such a figure would be greater than nine, and would lead right back to the issues surrounding the original IAU proposal for the definition of the term planet.)"

Foust's is a reasonable proposal that could be adopted to define categories of planets. But it is not the knife that cuts through the gordian knot astronomers face in trying to define "planet."

The problem with Foust's proposal is that tries to avoid defining "planet," while using the term to describe the round worlds that orbit our sun without orbiting another world. In other words, he defines planet while pretending not to.

His proposal is simply a variant of the proposal rejected by the IAU. It is different from the rejected proposal in that it subcategorizes the planets further than that proposal did. It is superior to the proposal adopted by the IAU because it rejects the "clearing the neighborhood" standard while still using roundness and not being a satellite to define planet.

The term "planet" is not simply an historical artifact we've inherited from our past and can't get rid of. It's actually a useful word. Defining planet can't be avoided because the round objects that orbit the sun without being satellites of other round objects are categorically similar. They are all round objects in space that orbit the sun without being the satellite of another round object in space. Why not call them what they are? Planets, damn it. They're planets.

It has been a strange experience watching astronomers debate this issue. Their resistance to accepting what is such a patently obvious characteristic of The Heliosphere is mystifying. Despite being dressed up as science, it doesn't impress this outside observer as being about science. Foust's article reveals some of that when he discusses how much like an edict the new definition is and how much of the resistance seems to be driven by a desire to avoid the prospect of a definition that expands the Solar System to dozens of planets. (Hey, it worked for Firefly and Serenity, why not for us?)

Foust's is a useful proposal that should be considered by the IAU when the astronomers next meet. Anything is better than the neighborhood bully definition adopted last week.

-tdr

Technorati: Astronomy.

Labels: Scienceism

The criticism of the new planet definition continues as more astronomers speak out. Where were they during the voting?

The best complaint so far focuses on the reguirement that a planet have cleared its orbital neighborhood of other objects. Some astronomers in the story linked below point out that more than one Kuiper Belt Object crosses Neptune's orbit, Pluto and Charon, for example. If being a neighborhood bully is a requirement for planethood Neptune is barely working at it. Astronomer Harold Weaver has a more fundamental objection that makes a lot of sense.

"'Regarding the resolution itself, I'm with Andy Cheng in concluding that the situation is still somewhat muddled. What exactly is meant by a planet 'clearing its neighborhood?' Since many 'plutinos' ... (including Pluto) ... cross Neptune's orbit, I'd say Neptune's neighborhood still needs some clearing!

'It just seems a bit risky to me to base a definition on a theoretical construct ('dynamically cleared regions') that's only approximate at best and may change significantly as our understanding of planet formation evolves over time.

'I further note that there have been particularly large swings in the theories of outer solar system dynamical evolution during the past decade. What was 'conventional wisdom' five years ago has been replaced with the latest fad, and I don't expect that situation to change any time soon.'" (Here.)

-tdr

Technorati: Astronomy.

Labels: Scienceism

Apparently the next controversy created by the new definition of planet is how to name all the new dwarf planets waiting to be discovered in the Kuiper Belt. (Here.) In keeping with the new category of dwarf, let's name them after Snow White's companions. Since there are only seven dwarfs but lots of dwarf planets we'll have to use translations of the names. For example, we can start with the seven English names, and then the next seven could be named in Russian, then Chinese, then Japanese, and so on.

In honor of the IAU's new definition, Dopey can be the first name.

Another option is Baskin Robbins' flavors of ice cream. The company has 51 permanent flavors listed on their website (here) and claims to have over 1,000 flavors overall. Rocky Road, anyone?

-tdr

Labels: Scienceism

Well, it's official. Pluto isn't a planet. (Here.) The minority of astronomers still in attendance at the IAU meeting voted to limit the number of planets in the Solar System to eight. (Here.) Standing athwart history with their hands indicating "stop," the astronomers let loose their reactionary instincts and said, "this far and no further."

This vote is a mistake and apparently some astronomers agree.

"'I'm embarassed for astronomy,'" said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute. 'Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted. ... This definition stinks, for technical reasons,' Stern told SPACE.com. He expects the astronomy community to overturn the decision. Other astronomers criticized the definition as ambiguous." (Here.)

This vote is a mistake because the chosen definition is more likely to stop the growth of public knowledge about the solar system. New Kuiper Belt Object discoveries will be placed into a category of dwarf planet that will be as ignored by the public as new asteroid and moon discoveries are today.

The rejected proposal would have led to incremental increases in public knowledge of the solar system as new KBOs were discovered and verified as planets. Under the rejected proposal public knowledge of the solar system could have kept pace a bit with the astronomers. The chosen definition is more likely to leave the public in the dark as astronomers make new discoveries.

The astronomers have decided on a category that keeps astronomy for the astronomers. Bully for them.

-tdr

Technorati: Astronomy.

Labels: Scienceism

It turns out there is some dissension in the ranks over the proposed definition of planet. (Here.) There's even a competing definition being proposed that would limit the planets to the big eight and demote Pluto to the status of "dwarf planet." (Here.) Either definition seems workable. But the definition that elevates Ceres and adds the "pluton" category is kind of cool. There's something geeky yet cool about the word "pluton."

There is one theme about the debate over defining "planet" that is a bit bothersome. More than one scientist has made comments similar to this one.

"'Scientifically, whether Pluto is also a planet is a non-issue,' [astronomer David] Jewitt writes on his web site. 'No scientific definition of planet-hood exists or is needed. Is that a boat or a ship? It doesn't matter if you are using it to float across the ocean. Scientists are interested in learning about the origin of the solar system, and setting up arbitrary definitions of planet-hood is of no help here.'" (Here.)

(First of all, Jewitt can cross the ocean in a dinky boat slammed around by the waves if he wants. Leaves that much more room on the ships for the rest of us. The big roomy safe ships. But we digress.)

Let's stipulate that whether Pluto remains a planet should not be the primary consideration. But it is useful to have a definition of planet. Scientists may only be interested in learning about the origin of the solar system but there are a lot of us who are interested in understanding the solar system as it exists now.

Science is not just for scientists.

It helps to make astronomy more accessible to laypeople to develop categories for objects in our solar system. The competing proposals both do that. But the pluton proposal is superior to the planet/dwarf planet option in one respect. Scientists agree there are lots of objects that may qualify as either a pluton or a dwarf planet waiting to be discovered way out there in the Kuiper Belt. Under the pluton proposal the number of planets will increase with each new discovery whereas under the opposing proposal we will never have more than eight planets.

Under the pluton proposal newly discovered plutons will be considered planets. With each discovery the number of planets will increase and public knowledge about the solar system is likely to grow as new planets are discovered and added. Under the planet/dwarf planet proposal the number of planets remains fixed. With each discovery of a new dwarf planet the number of planets remains the same. It'll be much easier to ignore discoveries of new dwarf planets because they aren't in a category that matters. They aren't real planets. The same happens now with asteroids. Newly tracked or discovered asteroids don't matter unless they have the potential to destroy civilization as we know it. Public knowledge of the solar system is unlikely to grow much under the planet/dwarf planet proposal.

But maybe astronomers don't care about public knowledge of their field. It would be a shame if that were the case and if the scientists voting on the competing proposals only had their own narrow interests in mind.

-tdr

Technorati: Astronomy.

Labels: Scienceism

According to Spacedaily the IAU's draft definition of a planet will have two general categories. The eight classical planets and plutons, which are objects with orbital periods longer than 200 years beyond Neptune's orbit. Pluto is the prototype pluton. (Here.) This seems workable. Using the draft definition in the article, the number of classical planets is likely to remain small and their names easy to remember. Eventually there are likely to be lots of plutons. But as a minor and far away version of planet, it will make little difference if students do or don't know the names of all of them. And best of all, Pluto will go from being the tiniest and least significant of the planets to being the King of the Plutons. Long live the King!

-tdr

Technorati: Astronomy.

Labels: Scienceism

Reports are that the panel of scientists meeting to decide what's a planet and what isn't may let Pluto remain one. (Here.) The scientists are mum on their agreed definition but apparently some favor this:

"Some panel members say they favor counting any object which is large enough that its gravity has made it round. If the object is spinning, a small bulge would be tolerated. "We're talking about no more than four or five new planets," says Iwan Williams.

Small potato-shaped asteroids wouldn't make the cut. But Ceres, a big round asteroid between Mars and Jupiter, might qualify. (Here.)"

Actually, astronomer Michael Brown suggests on his website that if a planet is defined as any object made round by its own gravity, the Sun could go from having 9 planets to at least 53. (Here.)

If you were in space you wouldn't hear them, but those screams you hear on Earth are science teachers and astronomy students everywhere.

Here are the names of some larger Kuiper Belt Objects to get you started on your memorization: Orcus, Varuna, Quaoar, Sedna, Ixion, and Huya (apparently, the US Marines have their own planet way out there in the Kuiper Belt). The other KBOs don't have names yet; just a series of numbers and letters like, 2003UB313 and 2005RM43. (See Brown's handy chart here. Be sure to look at the scribbled mess that 53 orbits makes of the map of our solar system compared to the beautiful 9 orbits we have today.)

-tdr

Technorati: Astronomy, Pluto,

Labels: Scienceism

The Planetary Society is trumpeting as a success the House Appropriations Committee's recent endorsement of more funding to space science. (Here.) The committee is restoring $75 million to space science, including money for the Europa robotic mission among others. Aeronautics gets $100 million back.

To achieve this result $151 million was cut from NASA's space exploration budget. Exploration Systems Research and Technology lost $135 million. Constellation Systems lost $16 million. (Here.)

No biggie, though. ESRT just pays for things like Centennial Challenges, Robotic Lunar Exploration, Prometheus, and other "technologies and capabilities that will make the national vision for space exploration possible." (Here, p. SUM 1-9.) Constellation Systems pays for things like development of the Crew Exploration and Crew Launch Vehicles and "the collection of systems that will enable sustained human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond." (Here, p. SUM 1-8.)

So, the Planetary Society's victory restored funding for more robots but at the cost of reduced funding for projects designed to develop the new infrastructure for manned space flights to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

In their defense, Planetary Society members might say that the real problem is that NASA still funds the shuttle to the tune of $4 billion per year. In fact, the Planetary Society came out early in 2006 in favor of discontinuing the shuttle. (Here.)

A campaign truly committed to exploration might fight for restored science funding, increased human exploration funding, and reduced shuttle funding. But that's not what the Planetary Society's so-called Save our Science campaign supports. No, the SOS campaign says nothing about cutting the shuttle and increasing human exploration funding. Instead, it simply concentrates on restoring the status quo ante by increasing funding to the robotic science programs. (Here.)

The flaw in the SOS campaign is that it is backward looking. It looks at NASA's past successes at robotic exploration and believes the future of space exploration should look the same. Congratulations, that's what the Society's preliminary success will give us. More robots. The Same Old Stuff. O, boy. Thanks for nothing, Planetary Society.

-tdr

Technorati: NASA, Science, Astronomy, Space Shuttle.

Labels: Scienceism, Space Societies

A prominent science organization has taken aim against human space travel -- the new Moon-Mars Initiative specifically. There seems to be little understanding that sending humans into space, scientists even, will advance science even more than sending robots does now. Here's the full report:

http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=59216

Labels: Mars, Scienceism