Just some stuff I get in email and from other sources… read these all the way through. You’ll love #6.
1) 85% of Americans wants a Presidential debate on science. I do too, if only for the hilarity factor. I’d love to see Clinton questioned repeatedly on how little she trusts experts.
2) The SciFi blog io9 (I read it every day, and you should too if you like SF) has an article asking if Obama will destroy the space program. Not quite as nuanced as my own blog post on the subject, but then we both stole this from Popular Mechanics.
3) Also in PopMech, it looks like NASA has been rethinking dissing private space companies. The space agency has been giving prizes and awards to some companies; they just indicated they’re interested in using SpaceX for launches in the future. I’m glad to see this. I think private industry may be a lot more flexible when it comes to launched than NASA. I’ve been saying for years that NASA should spend taxpayer money to do things companies cannot do (pay for the design, building, and use of deep space missions; go to the Moon, develop new technologies and methods, etc.) and let private industry take over launches. NASA has proven quite effectively that they are not so great at getting cheap access to space. It’s not all their fault; being beholden to the White House and Congress would be enough to make any person insane.
4) I was asked on my live video chat last Sunday if any video of Pangea Day, and specifically Carolyn Porco’s talk, would be made available. The answer is, yes! It’s on YouTube now, at least the first 20 minutes of it. But it includes Carolyn… introduced by Queen Noor of Jordan! Wow. That starts about six minutes in, and it’s nine minutes of your life that will be very well spent.
5) My sister sent me a link to some incredible hi-res Shuttle images. Very cool.
6) Finally, Colbert interviews astronaut Garrett Reisman. It’s funny — huge duh — but you can tell Colbert is totally squeed by this.
7) Not space or science per se, but my bud Adam Savage was on Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me last week. Very funny!
… and you want proof he’s my bud? O foolish mortal.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Oh Noes!!!!1!1 You mentioned politics again!
May 13th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Haven’t you posted #5 before? I have having semi-deja vu…. and I remember the Adam Savage thing too, now I think…
AAAUUGGHH!!
CJSF
May 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I love this Colbert interview! It’s so fun to see Colbert giggling and Garrett’s head-back delayed laughter.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Colbert is hilarious! Thanks for sharing the clip, Dr. Plait!
May 13th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I managed to catch the Colbert interview the night he did it. I think even the neighbors were wondering why I was laughing loudly and hysterically after 11.30pm.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
The Colbert interview was mondo cool. It was great to see how pumped Stephen was, too. He really gets off on that which is great. Pat Robertson would have never been like that.
What I especially liked was that Colbert asked Garrett to do some seemingly stupid things (spinning the bracelet, doing the flip) but that stuff is so awesome to us poor earthbound folks, that it was great to watch it.
I’m also glad to know that in space nobody can hear you scream.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I was just wondering which side approached the other to set things up. I suspect that Colbert went to NASA, not the other way around, but who knows…
It was wicked funny, though!
May 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I’m sorry but I am a little less amused by this kind of interviews. You have everything in it to make a great interview, including the technical possibilities that aren’t available anywhere else in the world and then Colbert blows it for asking questions like a 5-year-old. Thumb-war with the russians? Is that the best you can do? There was time for a bit of humor but I wish there was something more than that.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
OMG SPACE!
May 13th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I loved the “HAIL XENU”
May 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
On #1: At least an Obama-Clinton science debate (which would really be a science policy debate) would be between people more or less in touch with reality. A GOP science debate would be a more than a bit depressing.
On #2: I don’t know if Obama will destroy the space program, but he certainly seems unimpressed with the human space program since the end of Apollo. He’s not alone in that. Whether Obama would sustain Bush’s Vision or not, NASA needs to be given one basic encompassing human space flight mission, the funds to do it, and the same protection from shifting political wins that is afforded major weapons systems development at the Pentagon.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Dunno if this might interest you. BBC Radio 3’s “The Essay” revolves around Sputnik this week. They’re not technical (like the introduction to group theory a coupla weeks back), but more of a wedding of the arts and sciences:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/theessay/pip/myqyu/
(plus Ian McMillan has the most wonderful voice)
May 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
@João
The whole point of the Colbert Show is that nothing is taken seriously. I have watched from day one, and I haven’t seen him do anything serious yet.
It’s entertainment.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I’m a big fan of NASA and space exploration, but making cuts when we’re in debt is reasonable and responsible. As sad as I am to say this, it is a bit of a luxury item for a country.
If we had a balanced budget, a stable economy, and weren’t occupying a large country, I’d be all for space exploration. As it stands, educating our kids so they can deal with these problems has to be a priority. Maybe it’s a depressing thought, but we have to be honest about the situation. The Bush administration spent our generation’s elective expense money in Iraq. Maybe our kids will eventually pay off our debts and get us back into space if we educate them.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Delphi_ote:
Remembered when Bush’s daddy got the shivers when he wanted to go to Mars and NASA told him it would cost 500 billion? Why, that would buy you a nice little war.
Anyway, I could be convinced that NASA should focus on developing new, breakthrough, technology and turning it over to the private sector. This would entail tests in live flights, with and without crews.
In that scenario, if NASA need to go to the Moon to test something, they would. If not, they wouldn’t.
The simple truth is we really need a really fast propulsion system, something to replace the controlled explosions we now use. We need to throw a few billion in that direction.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
This is the exact kind of outreach that NASA should be doing. I really do wonder if it was NASA contacting Colbert, but knowing NASA and their arcane bloated system, they wouldn’t have the vision to initiate something like this. I’m willing to bet it was Colbert representatives contacting NASA. Great interview though, and as for the questions being light-hearted banter, what do you expect? It’s the Colbert Show, what’s he going to ask? Which candidate do you endorse? Have you seen the disastrous effects of the Myanmar Cyclonde? What is the future of NASA in your opinion? It was much funnier and more interesting this way. Those types of serious questions would be better asked after landing.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
kevin says colbert is entertainment, i disagree, i dont get much amusment from a smug pr**k who enjoys attacking science, ya thats entertainment in america
phil i am suprised you posted about col-bert, considering he attacked micheal shermer- remember
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3kFn_3xRY
ohhh but its comedy, (i say while rolling eyes)
May 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
This was a hilarious http://www.catholic.ie/
May 13th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Was Adam Savage wearing his YES Watch when you talked to him? They are so awesome. I meant to ask you about that and show you my YES watch in Detroit, but forgot. They are really cool watches for astronomy.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
A suggestion for a Science Debate topic: There is evidence for the existence of a natural nuclear fission reactor on Earth two billion years ago based on the nuclear waste found in rocks of that age. Candidates can be asked if they accept such evidence and what they think of the implications of the fact that the waste did not move with respect to the surrounding rock (in particular, the implications for nuclear waste disposal).
May 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Helioprogenus: I don’t know how it works, but there was an astronaut on Wait, Wait a few months ago and I remember the Car Talk guys once took a call from the shuttle. So I guess not everybody at NASA PR has their head where the Sun don’t shine.
Phil, you forgot to mention that Adam Savage scored a perfect three-from-three on the life of Bram Stoker. Who else would have guessed that he’d stolen Oscar Wilde’s girfriend?
May 14th, 2008 at 5:21 am
At the photos in #5)
Especially love the second photo. That’s the beautiful country of New Zealand in the background, with the upper half of the South Island taking up most of the space, and the lower half of the North Island at the top middle (yes…not highly original names…we know). Unfortunately, the mast at the top of the equipment is blocking a view of Wellington, but Christchurch is visible at the base of the bay on the left. In fact it almost looks like the astronauts are aiming a giant cannon at it….
May 14th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Dr. BA,
You might have covered this before, but there’s a question I need to ask. The Saturn picture that Carolyn Porco showed was of Saturn totally eclipsing the Sun (as it had to be in order to resolve the Earth). That means that we were looking at the dark side of Saturn. So where did the light come from to take the picture? I can understand the rings on the side, but the picture shows so much more. Is it a composite picture where the dark side was a super long exposure lit by starlight?? I’m just curious.
~TSP, FCD