Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Trailer To Be Shown Before Star Trek: Into Darkness

Soulskill posted 1 year,18 days | from the i-will-buy-one-of-those-NASAs-please dept.

Movies 158

Tired of seeing ads for cars and soda before the films you watch at the theater? Well, a successful crowdfunding campaign at Indiegogo will see a trimmed down version of NASA's 'We Are Explorers' video aired before showings of the upcoming Star Trek: Into Darkness in theaters all over the country. "Most people recognize space as a key expression of our character. They know our space programs as a globally recognized brand of ingenuity. The recently landed Mars Curiosity Rover was the latest reminder that space systems are the crown jewels of our scientific and technical prowess. Less known is the indispensable value space systems bring to our everyday lives. Space provides irreplaceable capabilities for defense, public health, finance, medicine, energy, agriculture, transportation, development and countless other fields. Investments in space programs are precisely about improving and protecting life on Earth. ... By funding this campaign, we can remind students and the general public that our nation's space agency is working hard on the next era of exploration." The campaign's funding goal was reached in just six days — their stretch goal will increase the number of theaters for the clip from 59 screens to 750. The movie comes out on May 17th.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Good (5, Informative)

RobbieCrash (834439) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322743)

Wider exposure to science cannot be a bad thing.

Re:Good (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322789)

I think we should be more honest and direct about the pitch, though.

We crossed oceans, took flight, and went to space for some contemporary sorts of fame and/or fortune. Not simple curiosity. At some point we decided that was inappropriate motivation, and things have ground to a halt.

Now private spaceflight is kicking the door down and making real progress. Let's pimp that a little, eh?

Re:Good (2)

asm2750 (1124425) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322805)

Once SpaceX, Orbital, et al. land a manned and privately funded ship on the moon I will say it's real progress. Right now we are still stuck with human LEO.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322825)

Real progress is also developing cheap spaceflight that works. It's doing everything quickly. It's actively developing reusable rockets. It's building inexpensive space habitats for people to live in.

Landing on Mars is a goal, with the added bonus of expecting real people to live there. Till they die of natural causes. Not regularly putting Captain America in an aging hunk in LEO for a few months until you replace him with a female Captain America, wash, rinse, repeat.

I'm not one to downplay what NASA does. But landing on the moon is an arbitrary goal you made up that doesn't define "real progress", and it's happening as we speak, by people motivated by more than a commercial about "it'd be nice to explore things".

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324039)

I guess you've never heard of Golden Spike Company or Inspiration Mars? The first is a private effort to land people on the Moon, and the second one is trying to organize a private spaceflight attempt to send people to Mars. Both plan on having this happen in this decade (meaning some time before the year 2020).

You can debate if either of these companies, or the numerous space prospecting companies that are starting to show up will be successful at getting things done in space, but they are trying to kick the door down and make some real progress by sending people and spacecraft well beyond LEO.

We will be stuck in the Solar System for quite some time as interstellar travel is quite beyond our capability (the Voyager spacecraft not withstanding.... and they won't get near another star within human lifetimes, much less the lifetimes of any current human civilization). The Solar System is a big place though with literally thousands of worlds to explore and enough raw materials to expand human civilization several orders of magnitude in terms of population.... and to do that with style and comfort.

The big goal of private spaceflight at the moment is to cut the cost of getting up there to at least make the fuel being used to get there as a major cost component. Several companies are making some significant progress in doing that.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43324211)

As was said above - come back when they've DONE it. At the moment they're at least fifty years behind the front line. I know it's painful for you, but you have to admit it was the government that got us into space, and the government that got us to the moon. Not private enterprise, not profit motivation.

Re:Good (1)

Teancum (67324) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324323)

SpaceX currently owns the only man-rated spacecraft that are in active service from vehicles launched within America, not NASA. That says quite a bit. Orbital Science (another private company) is doing the same thing and will have that spacecraft launched some time next month (aka April). I'd say they are getting things done. Bigelow Aerospace has not one but two orbital spacecraft in orbit right now that are capable of sustaining people, and are right now only waiting for a paying customer and for the private launching companies to get their acts together before they fly their next space station into orbit. Bigelow is also on the flight manifest for a future flight on the Falcon 9... so they aren't just sitting on the sidelines either.

Stuff is being done, so you may just get your wish.

I'd agree that paper studies and power point presentations mean very little, but these companies are bending metal, performing test flights, and getting things done. I'll admit that they have a long way to go, but there is no reason to think the government has a monopoly on talent and a whole lot of reasons to think NASA is impeding progress for people getting into space at the moment. The government may have been able to put people on the Moon, but they have shown a singular lack of ability to even keep people in space. NASA is in retreat and certainly not an agency on the forefront of aerospace technology.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43324883)

Granted, but that isn't exactly breaking new ground, is it? The two companies you originally mentioned (Golden Spike/Inspiration Mars) seem to be doing little more than producing powerpoints. SpaceX, Bigelow, Virgin Galactic, sure, they're getting to orbit, but orbit is not the moon, and it's certainly not Mars. When private space enterprise reaches the moon, they've caught up with 1969 NASA, and it's much easier to follow a trail already blazed.

I'd also argue with the premise that keeping people in space is exploration. Exploration is done with robots and satellites, as another poster pointed out excellently below. Planck, WMAP, Hubble, Antares, and all other outward-pointing telescopes/satellites are government funded. Curiosity, Spirit, Opportunity are all government. Private enterprise hasn't explored anything new, they're only now reproducing half a century old achievements, and have no chance of doing any original exploration. I'd love to be wrong about this - the more players in the game the better, so far as I'm concerned - but I don't see anything yet that looks like exploration of space by private companies.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322819)

You make it sound like NASA / JAXA and every other space agency didn't make real progress. They did, in fact they did A LOT of progress over the past decades. We learned so much about space from knowing nothing, and learn so much about safety and protocols to follow. What needed to be learned was the foundations of space, not how to effectively make space crafts without rockets. We didn't even know if we could swallow in space or even keep in the food we eat. There was progress but then serious budget cuts every year just killed it. Now instead of focusing on space programs, a lot of the money is spent on re-budgeting from the new amount and which programs to kill. I would highly recommend reading up on the history of space (and exploration of new frontiers in general) and understand that the private sector cannot spend vast amounts of wealth on something that has no immediate financial gain. While I may disagree with the government for the most part, I do believe that space could not have been a reachable frontier because to make a profit off from it would have been impossible.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322841)

Absolutely not. If I could wave a magic wand and multiply NASA's budget by 5x's I would. But let's be honest, the exciting work that's headed in the direction we've all wanted forever is happening in private industry, rapidly and efficiently, paid for by way of contracts with NASA.

A more direct way of saying this is, our space agency isn't going to put you on Mars or a space habitat. Ever. That's not what they do, and that isn't going to change. However, they might be kickstarting the comapnies that really can, and want to do exactly that, by paying them to do work they can't manage on their own.

Star Trek was a lovely idea. But we know what works for humanity, and we should stop lying to ourselves because we prefer a more poetic version of what motivates us.

Re:Good (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322887)

Yeah. You make some sense. But, poetry is motivational too.

Go out, crank up your motorcycle, crank up some tunes, and hit the highway. Rumble out across the badlands, with "Highway to the Danger Zone" booming in your ears. Try it.

I'm no poet, but poetry is indeed motivational. If it isn't, then you probably have no soul.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323011)

I don't know about the soul part since I don't care for books while some may actually say I have no soul for not being able to read a full book cover to cover (too boring to me) and I don't care much for music. But I'll be glad to watch unedited videos from NASA or extended footage for star trek. hmm... Perhaps poetry goes beyond the bounds of words and is found in every moment in life? Oh snap! I think that itself was poetry? Nooo!!!!!

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43325161)

I am also a motorcycle rider, so it's a good example. And I wouldn't say that inspirational things are useless, at all. Only that we should suck it up and embrace the fact that most of the practical outcomes we want are best served by acknowledging how they'll come about. That is, by way of private companies. I'm simply tired of pretending that humanities greatest achievements are motivated by the spirit of discovery combined with tax dollars. While those sometimes play an important role, if only as a learning experience, they're not going to get us where we want to be.

Re:Good (2)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324847)

A Ferengi is far less likely to invest in basic research. We still need an agency that will develop the technologies that corporations will reuse. There is unprofitable work to be done before things can be handed over to the likes of Mosk. That is what NASA has done for 50 years and the new corporate space ventures are the dividend of very old investments.

The shoulders of giants.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43325287)

I don't disagree. I posted this elsewhere, in so many words, but a big part of NASA's role now is to kickstart the kind of progress we've all been waiting for. And rightly so, I'd say.

Our space agency is not going to put you in space, much less another planet, ever. And while I'd love to multiply NASA's budget, much of that is because I want them swinging a big bat in their role of contracting practical ventures like SpaceX, Bigelow, etc. Those are dollars well spent, and I think we're seeing that play out as we speak.

I should cover any potential loose ends here by saying I do still want them landing rovers on Mars, checking out potentially habitable moons, etc. I'm just saying we should get over this (largely false) nobility complex we have about space travel, and embrace the fact that private ventures are where we're going to see progress towards the things that real people, like you and me, really want.

I'm sure someone along the line made critical discoveries about scurvy, improving aerodynamics, etc. because they were simply curious. But the boats with real people on them do the sailing, and the planes with real people in them do the flying, because people were motivated by things far less poetic than an uncompensated advancement of our species.

It seems like we (increasingly) treat this as a dirty little secret, and we should knock it off. For our own good. There are precious few things that are pretty consistent across history, but one of them is that people do amazing things acting in their own interest.

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322937)

But blatant flaunting of fascism is a bad thing; what political favors did they receive for the promo?

If I stop you from smoking, have I saved you from lung cancer, or deprived you of self-determination?

It's fantastic to be a reasonable being, considering one can do anything one finds to be reasonable.

If you refuse to believe in reality, it will refuse to believe in you.

Move along.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323515)

Nasa isn't science, nasa is throwing trillions at a problem and NEVER ever solving anything or creating anything new..

Re:Good (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324113)

Nasa isn't science, nasa is throwing trillions at a problem and NEVER ever solving anything or creating anything new..

All I know is it's wonderful showing my son a picture of earthrise from the moon, and watching his eyes go wide in wonder (followed by him running to his big sister's room to grab her globe and start investigating).

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323633)


This one would be good, too.

Re: Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323773)

Even better if NASA has a double-wide (not that they can afford it.)

Preaching the choir? (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322745)

It's not like you have to convince the average Star Trek fan that NASA should get some sensible funding.

But given the quality of the more recent Star Trek movies, this might just be the best thing they'll see that evening.

Re:Preaching the choir? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322777)

You need to spend a little more time proof-reading before you start telling us that your opinion of various films is the standard by which we should judge them.

Re:Preaching the choir? (2, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322873)

Sorry. English is not my forte when I've been working for 20 hours straight. I should stick to French. Or German. Or Spanish.

Kinda ironic... (5, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322845)

The entire thing basically looks like the intro of Star Trek: Enterprise. Minus the singing.
Also, practically minus the "future". All that trailer does is show things NASA "used to do".
Making the ST: E intro far more inspirational.

On the other hand, "We are explorers" is not really the motto that syncs with Jar Jar's Trek - which is about lens flares, explosions, running, shooting and apparently tits in space.
Not that there's anything wrong with tits in space, it's just that when talking about "exploration of celestial spheres" our goal should be set a little farther than a pair of double Ds.

Re:Kinda ironic... (3, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322891)

Tits in space? Hmmm. Interesting concept. Should I assume that we'll find human women attached to those tits? I don't know that whole mountains of disembodied tits would benefit man or mankind very much.

Re:Preaching the choir? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322881)

You'd be suprised.

The last Star Trek film had a very wide audience, and probably the highest fraction of female viewers of any Star Trek movie (or show). They're clearly not just going after Trekkies.

Re:Preaching the choir? (1)

jythie (914043) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324413)

I was actually thinking the other direction, that this is the wrong audience for NASA. While I know the stats are up for debate, from reading interviews it really seems like the creators of the reboot are primarily interested in reaching people who didn't like star trek.. so films that are heavily built on emotional acting, fast pace, and special effects. So standard action flic stuff. Which has its place, but most of the science geeks I know who loved Trek saw the first movie, were bored, and are not going to bother with the second one.

I think that the trailer could be better (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322757)

I've seen a lot of better trailers for NASA than this one. Also, why is Kirk holding a gun in the movie poster??

Stretch goal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322769)

...submitter works at Lockheed.

Bureacracy (-1, Flamebait)

mfwitten (1906728) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322771)

Fsck "our nation's" space agency; there's nothing "our" about it—the government just took my money and wasted it on a commercial.

I don't trust bureaucrats to allocate my capital properly, and this ridiculous propaganda campaign is proof of the validity of this distrust. The fundamental principle of Capitalism is that capital is best allocated by those who accumulated said capital in the first place; the bureaucrat has no idea what he's doing.

Re:Bureacracy (2)

dmbasso (1052166) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322793)

The fundamental principle of Capitalism [...]

Because we know how well it works with humans in command, right[U+2e2e]

Re:Bureacracy (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322801)

bzzt wrong...nasa can't spend money on a commercial - this was funded by donations

Re:Bureacracy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323017)

That may be true but remember what the IRS did to star trek just a few weeks ago? It hurts doesn't it?

Re:Bureacracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322813)

Fsck "our nation's" space agency; there's nothing "our" about it—the government just took my money and wasted it on a commercial.

I don't trust bureaucrats to allocate my capital properly, and this ridiculous propaganda campaign is proof of the validity of this distrust. The fundamental principle of Capitalism is that capital is best allocated by those who accumulated said capital in the first place; the bureaucrat has no idea what he's doing.

I used to be a Libertarian, then I grew up and got a clue.

Guess some people never grow up.

Re:Bureacracy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322833)

Yes yes, damn the government. Too bad your far flung accusations have no basis in this case, as it's a crowdfunded campaign. But don't let facts get in the way of your derp. Wear it proudly.

Re:Bureacracy (5, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322839)

1. It isn't your capital, it's the taxes that an elected legislature empowered by the Constitution collects.
2. Don't wreck a perfectly good economic system with Libertarian nonsense.

Re:Bureacracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322879)

Fsck "our nation's" space agency; there's nothing "our" about it—the government just took my money and wasted it on a commercial.

I don't trust bureaucrats to allocate my capital properly, and this ridiculous propaganda campaign is proof of the validity of this distrust. The fundamental principle of Capitalism is that capital is best allocated by those who accumulated said capital in the first place; the bureaucrat has no idea what he's doing.

What the hell are you talking about
Did you hear about the Hubble telescope and the Mars rover Curiosity?

Re:Bureacracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322913)

This commercial was not paid for by NASA. As a Federal Agency, it is illegal for NASA to advertise. The commercial was privately organized and funded by aerospace lobbyists.

Re:Bureacracy (1)

Teancum (67324) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324375)

More like funded by NASA fans and not really lobbyists. The distinction is a bit important to note, although I'm sure some lobbyists were involved as well.

The U.S. military is allowed to advertise (heck, they have a NASCAR team they sponsor and have run Super Bowl ads). The U.S. Postal Service was the primary sponsor of Lance Armstrong for more than one Tour de France race. Just because they are a federal agency doesn't prohibit them from running promotional advertising, but NASA is explicitly prohibited by federal law from doing this kind of advertisement.

Re:Bureacracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322921)

How in the hell do you manage to conflate Capitalism with the holy grail of national governance?

Re:Bureacracy (1)

bfandreas (603438) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323743)

So we should entrust our future to people who use exactly the same rhetoric to justify blood diamonds, peddling inpenetrable financial constructs, weapons and run-of-the-mill South American dictators.
While your dogmatic assertions have some merit to them unmitigated capitalism is not what civilisation is supposed to be; The betterment of us all and those that come after us. Short term gain and long term goals do not mix very well. NASA has been spanning three generations and counting and none of them were in it for the money.

Your mad ramblings have made very clear that this infomercial is needed to attract those who might have their minds poisoned by the trappings of Get Rich Now and don't see yet that there is more to life than one's own petty existance. You know, the Working For Generations Not Yet Born bit. Not Working To Increase MY Shareholder Value. Mars funnily isn't made of diamonds. Immediate profits are not to be had.

Bureaucracy tends to happen when beancounting occurs. All for the benefit how your tax money is spent and what it does buy you. The answer of course is it buys you nothing. It might buy your great-great-great-grandchildren something if humanity does indeed suffer the misfortune of you procreating.

Re:Bureacracy (4, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324411)

Speaking as a non-American, NASA is one of the few things I find myself admiring about the USA, and certainly one of the most worthy.

Your government clearly underestimates the high esteem in which NASA is held around the world, otherwise it would fund the bejesus out of it.

Re:Bureacracy (1)

jythie (914043) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324435)

Do you rant at your doctors about how they should be balancing your humors and complain that the aether is hurting your cell phone connection?

NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322853)

the GNDN conduit of the real world

Surely nobody will go see the movie anyway (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322857)

The last movie turned out to be a lie.
It was called star trek and it had some characters with the same name in and a few things in common.
But it wasn't star trek, the universe wasn't the same one.
I don't imagine many people will be conned again

Re:Surely nobody will go see the movie anyway (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322923)

That's exactly how I felt about it: It was a modestly interesting SF movie, but it wasn't Star Trek.

Re:Surely nobody will go see the movie anyway (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324067)

I can give some slack to character interpretations bu honestly, the ending sucked and I concur, other than name it did not feel like 'star trek'

Re:Surely nobody will go see the movie anyway (1)

jythie (914043) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324519)

Yeah.. sometimes I wonder if the same thing happened as Super Mario Brother's 2... some new author created an original world with its own backstory and characters, then some executive said 'hey, we like this, but if we rebrand it as something high profile then more people will watch if we just change all the characters and backgrounds.. and hey, since it is a dream/reboot the artifacts from swapping things out does not even have to make sense!'

Re:Surely nobody will go see the movie anyway (2)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324873)

That is the nature of any inter-generational story. Some fanboy will always whine that the newest incarnation is not a true Scotsman.

It doesn't matter if it's Dickens or Batman.

and this is news for nerds how, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322859)

I'd see the point if this was old trek, but it's lens-flare bieber trek. Not NFN at all.

Lost opportunity (1)

allypally (2858133) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322899)

Just think how much more awesomer this would have been if made by the IRS. Cheaper too - they already have a Star Trek set and costumes.

great idea, not-so-great video (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43322901)

The curiosity rover's "7 minutes of terror" is way better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2I8AoB1xgU

Still gives me goosebumps watching it.

Target audience? (4, Insightful)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322903)

TFA cites younger people as being the target audience. As a young person who also happens to know quite a few other young people this seems strange. In general, young people tend to understand the importance of NASA and space programs in general - we all know all know the associated trivia such as where ballpoint pens and Teflon came from. We all know the importance of science - we are all (unless you are in the Bible Belt of the USA) taught it in school and we are all aware of what science can do for us.

It seems to me that the people who actually need to be targeted are the middle aged and older people who are in control of the votes and money needed to revitalise the space programs. Luckily, there is some penetration of Star Trek into these age groups.

Re:Target audience? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322931)

It seems to me that the people who actually need to be targeted are the middle aged and older people who are in control of the votes and money needed to revitalise the space programs. Luckily, there is some penetration of Star Trek into these age groups.

Like, everyone who watched TOS when it was new...

Re:Target audience? (1)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322945)

TOS was terrible. I know I'm going to get hate for saying that, but it's truly unbearable crap. No-wonder that whole age bracket has an aversion to science.

Re:Target audience? (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | 1 year,18 days | (#43322977)

Yes, "that whole age bracket" agrees with you, which is why the Historical Documents marked the beginning and end of the franchise, and it died alone, unloved and unremembered, inspiring nothing and no-one.

Re:Target audience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323013)

its good to watch stoned

Re:Target audience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323023)

Oh, it's "cheesy" or "corny" or whatever the word is, but it's fun.

Re:Target audience? (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323029)

TOS was terrible. I know I'm going to get hate for saying that, but it's truly unbearable crap. No-wonder that whole age bracket has an aversion to science.

Yeah, it should have been sophisticated, like today's television shows.

Re:Target audience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43324475)

"(unless you are in the Bible Belt of the USA)"
"No-wonder that whole age bracket has an aversion to science."

You are either extremely bigoted and arrogant or a troll.

Re:Target audience? (1)

jythie (914043) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324535)

While terrible in its way, compared to other media of the time period it was rather groundbreaking, and actually did result in many young people getting interested in science and engineering. So while it might not have had much of a mass impact on the general public, it has been sited as having an impact on the minority that really drove engineering for many decades.

Re:Target audience? (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324603)

It seems to me that the people who actually need to be targeted are the middle aged and older people who are in control of the votes and money needed to revitalise the space programs.

It's also nearly impossible to change the opinions of middle aged and older people.

Re:Target audience? (1)

Lincolnshire Poacher (1205798) | 1 year,18 days | (#43325153)

we all know all know the associated trivia such as where ballpoint pens and Teflon came from

Do tell.

The ballpoint pen was invented by Laszlo Biro in 1938

Look at all that light pollution - this is why you (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323021)

Look at all that light pollution - this is why most of you have never seen a starry sky. It's truly amazing and infinite times more inspiring than crap from Hollywood.

"We" means WHITE PEOPLE, of course (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323063)

We all know that BLACKS aren't explorers. I wonder why NASA uses the term "We" to try to make out that all races are the same, and are all equally participating in space exploration? LOL

Finally (1)

dohzer (867770) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323087)

I've been worried lately that to enough of my colleagues know about NASA or understand how prestigious it would look on their resume. Money well spent.
p.s. If you don't know, NASA is the government-funded space agency in the USA.

This is awesome BUT (5, Interesting)

brunes69 (86786) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323409)

.. I wish there was a "This video was funded by public donations" under the NASA ad at the end. I can see a lot of people in the theatre being needlessly jaded by the idea that their tax dollars were spent advertising a government agency, when that isn't the case here.

All Hail the Federal Civil Servant (1)

gelfling (6534) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323449)

In Start Trek's one world government run by the army, seemingly

Re:All Hail the Federal Civil Servant (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324335)

You're just bitter that they send the roboticists away for reprogramming, aren't you? But with non-scarcity they need something for humans to do. Walk outside the ship to fix dangerous stuff? Great; and even better if a few float away or get eaten by space monsters.

Irrelvant space aggency (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323507)

Irrelevant space agency that needs to get abandoned in the cold-war era where it belongs.. (FIRE SALE)
seriously though, even in Star Trek it was a privately run thing with a really interested scientist trying to create a warp engine (and that's how it will happen)

people working at nasa are just doing their job, they don't care what they're doing as long as they get a frigging paycheck at the end of the month (jaded old workers)

Re:Irrelvant space aggency (1)

Lumpy (12016) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323541)

Not it wont happen. a "warp engine" can not be made by some guys in their garage. it will take experiments on the billion dollar and trillion dollar scales to even hope to come up with anything that can do a significant % of C.

You watch far to many movies, Movies are not reality. Bill gates will not dump all of his wealth into ONE experiment.

Re:Irrelvant space aggency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323573)

they've already wasted trillions of dollars, and they couldn't even create 1/3rd an ipod..

Re:Irrelvant space aggency (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323627)

and i don't mean a guy in a garage, i mean a rich billionaire that's really interested in this POOP (hence fire sale)

Re:Irrelvant space aggency (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324049)

Agreed. The only thing NASA should be involved in are basic science missions. And even there I think they should spin off their mission specialists/researchers to a university consortium. Mission control/operation services also could be spun off and offered as a service to any group.

I would also ask - why are there not any standardized delivery systems? IE, small, medium large to which instrument(s) can be readily attached? Why must NASA reinvent the wheel on every mission? Doing so could greatly reduce costs and time to space. Though I suppose the industry groups might object if their profit margins are cut.

Awesome trailer... (3)

Lumpy (12016) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323537)

Problem is War is more profitable and more desirable to human kind. We prefer to kill each other in the name of god, peace, and love.

n3igga (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43323587)

users. BSD/OS (i always bring my In our group

Please build more telescopes than spaceships (3, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323621)

What excites me more than shuttle missions are satellites and probes NASA has been sending out all these years.

MRO and to a lesser extent MSL are worth 20 round trip human mars missions as far as I'm concerned. New telescopes like JWST are likely to be as priceless as HST and WMAP have proven to be.

It is simply cheaper and more productive to push technology without having to worry about earthly things like human safety.

My only problem with the video other than being slightly cheezy is the video is all rockets and no science.

Re:Please build more telescopes than spaceships (2)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324207)

Its using the right tool for the job.

The problem with NASA is that its a relic of the cold war. There is this manned mission thing that quite frankly is a waste of money. It does *not* even achieve anything that the space enthusiasts want. It has awful return on investment and stops the entire space program for years every time something goes wrong.

Some push manned missions because of inspiration and exploration spirit.. Shesh for the billions it costs you can make a lot of full length movies and release them for free.

Some claim you get more science done. This is odd since there is no scientific basis to such a claim. Lets not forget that probes, drones and robotic labs don't take people out of the loop, just out of hostile unlivable environments. In fact the apollo mission had crap return on investment, even for the technology of the time. That kind of mass budget could have really got a lot done, and since its not all life support system, probably been cheaper as well.

And if it is the science that is suppose to be the reason, then the current unmanned missions that are a fraction of the price of the ISS should already be inspiring everyone that give a crap? What does adding some dude with flag change?

Re:Please build more telescopes than spaceships (2)

Teancum (67324) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324443)

In defense of NASA (and I'm a huge NASA critic), they seem to do better than most other government agencies in terms of returning value for tax dollars spent. At the very least the manned spaceflight missions provided some amazing entertainment and thousands of hours of programming for the major television networks at modest prices that would be comparable to Hollywood budgets.

I think using the "scientific inquiry" argument is about as lame as it gets and that doesn't even remotely touch what NASA actually accomplished.

The manned spaceflight program in particular has almost nothing to do with science, and that is mostly an afterthought. That is especially telling as the first scientist to go to the Moon was also the last one in the 20th Century to step onto the lunar surface. What you might say is that Apollo was an exercise in stretching engineering limits and pushing boundaries to see what could be done. That is what you get when you do things that have never been done before.

As for what NASA is currently doing, in particular the James Webb Space Telescope and the "Senate Launch System" that are currently in development, they are boldly going where thousands have gone before. I really don't see anything they are currently doing which even comes close to the boundary pushing NASA was doing in the 1960's when things were really happening. Almost all of that is now happening in private commercial spaceflight endeavors who are starting to get into space and get things done with NASA begging to come along for the ride.

Re:Please build more telescopes than spaceships (1)

the gnat (153162) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324955)

I really don't see anything they are currently doing which even comes close to the boundary pushing NASA was doing in the 1960's when things were really happening.

This may be a fair assessment, but I'd also argue that the unmanned exploration missions have been incredibly successful and relatively efficient, and a more sustainable future for NASA. Science and technology don't always need to be "boundary pushing" - sometimes iterative refinement and incremental advances are just as important. Sure, the rovers and probes aren't especially daring, but they're relatively cheap, they've accomplished real science, and NASA has an excellent track record for pulling them off successfully - and just as importantly, no other organization has done anything comparable so far.

I don't see any conflict between letting NASA focus on (unmanned) science - and giving it the funding it needs to really excel at it - and letting the private sector lead the way in exploitation and human exploration of space. In fact I think that's exactly how it should be. The public sector may not always be the most efficient, but it has one key advantage: it can think extraordinarily long-term, in comparison to private companies which need a return on investment in the near future. Current missions like Kepler are laying the groundwork for advancements many decades or (more likely) centuries in the future. Personally, I'd like to see NASA focus on two things:

1) More planet-finding, including (eventually) telescopes capable of imaging extrasolar planets directly. (Probably using the sun as a gravitational lens, which makes Kepler look like a child's toy telescope, but that's the kind of long-term, far-out shit that I think NASA could rock.)

2) Continuing to probe (heh) every body in the solar system which might have life, or which is interesting for other reasons.

Missions like these will tell us what's out there; entrepreneurs and private investors can decide what to do with this information. One could also make a strong case for experimental propulsion research - let Elon Musk and others focus on making conventional propulsion affordable and routine (what the shuttle was supposed to do but didn't), and doing so quickly, and NASA can explore less conventional methods with a more open timeline.

Tired of Ads? (1)

MonsterMasher (518641) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323629)

"Tired of seeing ads for cars and soda before the films you watch at the theater?"

A long time ago. I stopped paying $10 to then watch a commercial.. but I'm old fashion that way.

Wrong movie (2)

LordNimon (85072) | 1 year,18 days | (#43323665)

What's the point of showing a NASA promotional video before a Star Trek movie? Everyone who watches that movie is already a fan of space exploration. The video should be shown in front of something completely different, like The Great Gatsby.

I would have sponsored the funding campaign on Indiegogo if that had been their goal. Instead, it's just preaching to the choir. What a waste.

The trip to mars. (1)

leuk_he (194174) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324563)

This is all about NASA making a scientifically correct movie how to fly some astronouts to mars and back. They will use real life models of rockets and gear. And it will cost the budget of NASA a lot. THey might even make it *** an international co-production ***. Minimal CGI, and not those fake moon-landing minitures and errors like a waving flag.

It will be premiered on the news, and not in some MPAA controlled screen.

Re:The trip to mars. (1)

VanessaE (970834) | 1 year,18 days | (#43325051)

Comments like this (serious or not) make me wonder just how many people out there truly believe we never landed on the moon, sent those probes to mars, etc.

Space provides significant profits (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324005)

for corporations suckling on the government teat: "Created by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) of America" Want to know more?

yoU Fail It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43324031)

play area Try not Trouble. It hand...don't are a few ggod [gay-5ex-access.com]?

Isn't it followed by a two hour NASA ad? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43324093)

Star Trek is the greatest advertisement for NASA our culture has produced. Maybe they should consider putting this before the next Larry The Cable Guy movie.

Should used actual Optimus Prime voice actor (1)

millertym (1946872) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324197)

... instead of a semi-close local small town play actor's.

Re:Should used actual Optimus Prime voice actor (1)

VanessaE (970834) | 1 year,18 days | (#43325067)

If you read the fine article (yeah, right), it states that it actually is Peter Cullen. I presume he sounds like he does because he's not actually trying to do the low Optimus Prime voice we all know so well.

Seen NASA Trailer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43324645)

I saw that NASA trailer! It showcases NASA's new goal of getting a human back into space by the year 2100. :-)

now they only need to figure out the "space" part (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,18 days | (#43324871)

If NASA was as good as doing things in space as they are at the propaganda, then we'd be doing great. Sure, they do a number of things in space that are remarkable, but the logistics and infrastructure for serious space activities just aren't there.

For example, they're kicking around the idea of a Europa ice drill. Why only one such mission? There are plenty of other icy Moon and asteroids out there. The same drill could be used on Saturn's moon Enceladus (which has similar liquid water activities). It could be used on Ceres, the largest asteroid which also happens to have a ice layer. It could be used on all of the other major Jovian moons. It could with modification be used on Phobos (a moon of Mars) or some Trojan asteroids of Jupiter.

Same issue with Mars spacecraft. All the rovers are one-off. They never sent another wave of MERs (Mars Exploration Rover) or MSLs (Mars Science Laboratory).

They never say, "Oh, this is a really cool tool. Let's use it more than one time." Manned space is even worse off with ridiculously priced space stations and terrible launch vehicle development efforts. It's all about securing government funding for all the special interests in the right congressional districts.

This is the lack of ambition and economic awareness that will cripple NASA until they (and the US in general) change how they do things.

Can they supply a working space ship? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43324907)

By Grabthar's Hammer ... what a space program.

NASA Logo (1)

walllaby (1869496) | 1 year,18 days | (#43325007)

Does anyone else still prefer the 1975 red typographic "worm" logo NASA used to use? I would have loved to see that in white against a black background at the very end of this trailer. Maybe it's just a generational thing; most movies trailers can't resist throwing in their titles in Bank Gothic near the end.

Potatohead here.. That brought a tear to my eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43325323)

Shit. Didn't think it would. Was not expecting it to go that way.

I miss who we were as a nation. Life is hard and knowing we are getting after it like that is inspiring in the best of ways.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account