Beta
×

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 Appoints New Chief Scientist

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the welcome-aboard dept.

NASA 66

SchrodingerZ writes "Planetary Geologist Ellen Stofan, expert in the terrains of Venus, Mars, and Titan, has recently been appointed the Chief Scientist for the space agency. Stofan will act as the top adviser for Charles Bolden, NASA's current administrator. Beginning August 25th, Stofan will be Bolden's head adviser for NASA's project planning and investments. She will replace former chief scientist Dr. Waleed Abdalati, who left his position to be the director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado. Stofan has both a masters and doctoral degree of geological sciences from Brown University, and is known for her involvement in the Applied Science Laboratory's project to put a boat on Saturn's moon Titan, as well as a member of the radar team for the Cassini spacecraft. Though she'll be joining in a time of large budget cuts, Bolden explains that '[Stofan's] breadth of experience and familiarity with the agency will allow her to hit the ground running. We're fortunate to have her on our team.'"

cancel ×

66 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

God says (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44431827)

tragical Bread well_obviously season buy shist kill accept
births sorrowed memory pleasure-seeking besides magnify
sacrificing edify bringing run enlarge knew fluctuates
small_talk adjusted_for_inflation bickering Continence
Catastrophic_Success corresponded sittest concubinage
beneath heart's confute glories say going forgive sickly
excited destined parents quest judgest Divers profits
bounds wide Nevada sole Simplicianus other's owns sole
Speak Indiana Angola Ofttimes Foul defining engages bold
remained Bolivia

In which direction? (-1, Troll)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#44431873)

Bolden explains that '[Stofan's] breadth of experience and familiarity with the agency will allow her to hit the ground running

I predict that this will be the first replacement in a long line of many replacements. NASA is almost completely irrelevant in the modern world. There's bugger all that NASA has done with it's massive budgets and people continue to look to them for progress. Anyone with hopes for the US space program is just reaching for desperate idealism in the face of the nearly complete failure of human kind to do any sort of space exploration.

NASA :- Not A Serious Agency

Re:In which direction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44431917)

I thought it was.... Need another seven astronauts

Re:In which direction? (5, Insightful)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about a year ago | (#44432563)

NASA is almost completely irrelevant in the modern world.

While I agree that they're becoming significantly less relevant for their 'traditional' activities (which are probably better left to the fledgling private industry) as a pure science organisation, I think they still have plenty left to offer.

There's bugger all that NASA has done with it's massive budgets.

The problem is that they don't have massive budgets. They've got tiny budgets for what we expect of them, and especially in the context of budgets that are thrown at far less valuable endeavours.

Re:In which direction? (3, Informative)

delt0r (999393) | about a year ago | (#44432599)

They have done some great stuff with very small portions of the money. Mars rovers, Hubble and even with cost over runs JWS will be epic. NASA needs to spend less on manned space missions which are expensive for little or no return and focus on what it does well. Science.

Re:In which direction? (1)

demachina (71715) | about a year ago | (#44435165)

Only if it actually works. If it doesn't or it breaks down immediately its only value will be if it compells NASA to develop the manned or robotic capability to go fix it.

Re:In which direction? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44432601)

Bolden explains that '[Stofan's] breadth of experience and familiarity with the agency will allow her to hit the ground running

I predict that this will be the first replacement in a long line of many replacements. NASA is almost completely irrelevant in the modern world. There's bugger all that NASA has done with it's massive budgets and people continue to look to them for progress. Anyone with hopes for the US space program is just reaching for desperate idealism in the face of the nearly complete failure of human kind to do any sort of space exploration.

NASA :- Not A Serious Agency

Okay wish guy, lets see you put rovers on Mars, or orbiters around the gas giants.

i guess Hubble's irrelevant too? Who the hell needed to know the universe is accelerating when we could be using our resources for more reality TV shows and night clubs.

Re:In which direction? (1)

demachina (71715) | about a year ago | (#44435339)

Rovers and orbiters are built by JPL. JPL is NASA in name only. It was created in1936, long before NASA.

After giving JPL well deserved tribute for their planetary missions, they also deserve tribute for surviving, staying relevent and doing great work in spite of NASA.

Hubble was OK after a disasterous start. NASA does deserve priase for it along with the other great observatories.

Those programs don't really explain away the fact that the centerpeice of the organization and the one that sucks up most of the money, manned space exploration, is a complete disaster. At some point you need to ask, "What have you done lately"?

Re:In which direction? (2)

garyebickford (222422) | about a year ago | (#44436317)

What NASA has "done lately" with regard to 'marquee' programs is cope with Washington's repeated switcheroo - Ares, Constellation, ..., every year or two Washington seems to cancel one plan and embark on another. In the corporate world, this is a classic sign of a company in trouble and about to go down the tubes, but in politics it seems to be business as usual. Further, what NASA does (not just manned space and exploration - everything) is about what women in the US spend on lipstick and other makeup, and only about 0.4% of the federal budget.

But while Washington fiddles, NASA has been a very effective promoter of both space-based research (making the ISS into a National Lab will result in advanced medical treatments and other benefits within a short time) and commercial space development, using relatively small amounts of money and creative approaches to help companies like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace and others achieve the necessary capabilities to make commercial space development possible. Some of these companies are already profitable and the rise of "New Space" has been instrumental in reducing launch costs by as much as 1/2 for everybody. This in turn is making it economically feasible to do things like space mining and in-orbit satellite servicing and refueling. And the long term result of this will be to help cut the costs of building and launching the long-range exploration and research vehicles that NASA will need.

Re:In which direction? (1)

demachina (71715) | about a year ago | (#44443479)

That is an extremely convenient cop out. NASA simply hasn't delivered on anything worth funding for a really long time. Success would breed support.

Ares was a deeply flawed in concept, design and construction and it cost a fortune to accomplish next to nothing. Why would anyone continue that farce when SpaceX and Falcon are developing far better launchers and capsules far faster and for much less money.

NASA simply can't do anything without squandering money. They sent a team to SpaceX to study how they were accomplishing so much with so little. The fact that NASA would send a team out to study this is disturbing in itself. One answer is stop using theirh entrenched contractors, (i.e. Lockheed and Boeing) who are milking every contract for every dollar they can.

NASA, Boeing and Lockheed are probably delighted when when one program is cancelled and replaced with another because they never have to deliver anything that works and the pay is the same.

Re:In which direction? (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44432609)

Bullshit.

If all you care about is firing people on ballistic trajectories around other solar system bodies, then yes, NASA has failed. If what you want is great science, something like having a network of sophisticated planetary science missions [nasa.gov] operating on all of the major solar system bodies right now, then they're kicking ass, and Stofan is the right person for the job of continuing that mission.

Re:In which direction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44434381)

We have anything operating around Venus? I'll admit there doesn't seem to be much point but I do consider Venus a major solar system body.

Re:In which direction? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44434829)

Oh, right. And it occurs to me that I'm not sure we still have one around Mercury.

Re:In which direction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44435133)

Yep, we do. MESSENGER is still going strong in orbit around Mercury.

Re:In which direction? (2)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about a year ago | (#44435569)

NASA may not, but the ESA has Venus Express sending back loads of data so there may be no need for NASA to duplicate ESA work.

Re:In which direction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44455675)

NASA may not, but the ESA has Venus Express sending back loads of data so there may be no need for NASA to duplicate ESA work.

Data validation is important, especially if you intend to base a theory on it. One sample set is hardly "all we need" unless you want your theories to be based on information that was only collected and verified once.

Re:In which direction? (5, Insightful)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44434055)

"Massive budgets" my ass. The US military spent more just last year than NASA has spent in all the years since its founding combined. Just the Tet Offensive cost more than Apollo. Taxes generated by revenue from industries that never would have existed without NASA have more than paid for the agency over the years.

Re:In which direction? (1)

garyebickford (222422) | about a year ago | (#44436535)

NASA's budget is about equivalent to the money spent on cosmetics in the US each year. It's about 1/5 of the Food Stamp program, 1/10 of the interest on the national debt.
It's about 1/3 of what the people of the US spend on shoes, 1/20 what we spend on restaurants, 2/7 what we spend on tobacco products, and 1/2 what we spend getting our hair cut. Given the US median income of about $50,000, if the government were a family, it would be equivalent to what the average family spends of their income, on beer.

Re:In which direction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445119)

Given the US median income of about $50,000, if the government were a family, it would be equivalent to what the average family spends of their income, on beer.

My family are extremely average and also complete alcoholics, you insensitive clod!

Re:In which direction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44438239)

When you say "massive budgets" you reveal that you're a complete idiot. NASA's budget is less than 1% of the federal budget (recently it's been at 0.5%). Meanwhile their economic return has been shown to be many times their budget.

NASA has a smaller budget than the air force for space activities, and yet no one complains about the air force not getting to Mars....

NASA's Muslim outreach? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44431891)

Bolden needs help with his top priority set by Obama for NASA: muslim outreach. It would be funny if it weren't true.

LET US PRAY HE BELIEVES !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44431947)

Enough of those who do not want to believe !! You can only find little green men through our Lord and savior !! AhMmm !!

Do you not WANT TO BELIEVE ??

Any change is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44432075)

The last Chief Scientist was a nut.

Re:Any change is good (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44432643)

I decided to Google his name and the closest I could find to him being a nut was a WUWT post, where the title criticises him, the article doesn't actually get around to explaining what Watts' problem with him is, and the update takes a NASA administrator to task for not knowing about Seinfeld. If this is the state of "climate sceptic" discourse I'd better get caught up on my '90s US TV shows. I'd hate for Anthony Watts to accuse me of not knowing about the third season of Friends or something.

Expert!? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#44432091)

How can one claim expertise in a subject one has never experienced?

Re:Expert!? (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about a year ago | (#44432607)

How can one claim expertise in a subject one has never experienced?

Through the process of studying it from afar. According to the summary she is apparently an "expert in the terrains of Venus, Mars, and Titan". She probably knows a LOT about geology, atmospheric physics, chemistry, and other fields related to planetary terrains; and then learned domain specific things about what we can infer from those bodies from what we've been able to see. Going there would probably help a great deal in cementing or altering some beliefs, but it's not necessary for being an expert on the subject.

It's really no different to someone being an "expert on historical linguistics" (a hobby of mine, but I don't claim to be an expert personally). While no-one can claim to know with 100% certainty the history of any language without having used a time machine to examine the subtle changes to it throughout time, we can make some pretty good assumptions that are highly likely to approximate the reality very closely.

Re:Expert!? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#44432941)

So the claimed "experts" have no idea if the meaning of the languages were changed with such subleties by gestures? You can't know a thing is so without having experienced the thing.

Re:Expert!? (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about a year ago | (#44433113)

So the claimed "experts" have no idea if the meaning of the languages were changed with such subleties by gestures? You can't know a thing is so without having experienced the thing.

You can't know anything at all, but you get in to the realm of pointless philosophical mental masturbation if you don't start accepting some things as being fundamentally true.

Also, as someone that has experienced psychedelic substances (quite a lot), it's also probably worth mentioning that just because your senses tell you something, that doesn't necessarily make it any more real than what reasoning can deduce.

Re:Expert!? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#44433199)

Didn't Asimov write a whole series about the Foundation of your thoughts? In many ways context is the key to understanding.

Re:Expert!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44433385)

So the claimed "experts" have no idea if the meaning of the languages were changed with such subleties by gestures? You can't know a thing is so without having experienced the thing.

Can you see my "subtle gesture"?

Re:Expert!? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44433553)

More formally, your knowledge of certain aspects of the language is strictly bounded by the loss of this information. Historical linguistics as a field knows this and does research into it. I don't see that this undermines the expertise of a historical linguist any more than the uncertainty principle undermines the expertise of the theoretical physicist.

Re:Expert!? (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about a year ago | (#44433341)

It's really no different to someone being an "expert on historical linguistics" ...

Yes, but are you a cunning linguist?

Re:Expert!? (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about a year ago | (#44433443)

Yes, but are you a cunning linguist?

My wife seems to think so ;)

Having linguistics as a hobby tends to lend itself to using that joke rather often...

Re:Expert!? (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about a year ago | (#44433585)

I'm sure you do hear that a lot, but it's such a good joke, I couldn't resist.

Re:Expert!? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44432631)

The same way that an expert ship navigator doesn't have to have gone out and personally charted every coastline?

Re:Expert!? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#44432945)

A ship navigator has real world experience to draw upon.

Re:Expert!? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44433407)

What experience? They don't steer the ship and they don't create the charts.

Having a chief scientist is great! (1)

SlovakWakko (1025878) | about a year ago | (#44432093)

I am a scientist and I find the idea of calling our boss "chief" hilarious. Maybe I should try calling his boss "master chief" (and hope he doesn't know Halo...)

So (0)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44432369)

Another Warmist then?

Re:So (5, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44432553)

Yes, NASA has a habit of hiring *competent* scientists.

*snap*

Affirmative action (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44432447)

How sickening. I'm sure it's completely an accident that she is a woman, no social engineering here. What a joke it all is.

Re:Affirmative action (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44432679)

This must be a real dilemma for you, because she's a white woman replacing a non-white person. Which means more to you, your racism or your misogyny?

Re:Affirmative action (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44436911)

Hilarious. Nice try, but no cigar.

"Racist, racist, racist". Go on, say it again, you're still wrong.

Our white countries are STILL being invaded by millions of parasitic third worlders every year, against the clear wishes of the MAJORITY of the white population, yet you support this totalitarianism, and think you're some kind of 'rebel' for doing exactly what the bankers and government want. My, aren't you a hero...

"racist, racist, racist". There, you get ten points for being a 'useful idiot'.

Look up 'revealed preference' and then explain to me why so many areas in white countries have much higher than the national average of non-whites in them. Must be due to 'racism' - meaning 'white people daring to actually choose to live around their own kind, rather than the third worlders that the 'government' is trying to FORCE them to live with'.

How 'evil' of us whites to simply want OUR OWN COUNTRIES.

Care to tell us WHO made the decision to prevent ALL white people from EVER having our own countries again, and care to explain why you think that is morally right?

You're a lost cause, you asshole.

Move to Haiti, if you want to live around third worlders. Why aren't you moving?

Re:Affirmative action (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44476029)

I don't know what's funnier, that you basically invented an entire self-consistent philosophy to assign to me on the basis of my smartass one-liner, or that you practically shit yourself with hate raging against it.

keynesian science (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#44432647)

just keep killing astronauts till you achieve your goals... killing astronauts isn't bad... governments aren't like criminals... you just can't compare the two

demand for national pride and political supremacy is far more important than the supply of astronauts

Re:keynesian science (2)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44434033)

Huh? Are you under the impression that exploration of frontiers is supposed to be 100 percent safe with no possibility of injury? If so, then you're 100 percent wrong. When the Gemini Seven were brought to the launch pad the first time to watch a rocket launch the thing blew up in front of them. They went on anyway. Exploring frontiers is dangerous, my great great grandparents risked starvation, cold, heat, wolves, bears, and marauding Mormon raiders to homestead the frontier. Many of their neighbors and some of their relatives died. Exploration is dangerous, and everyone involved knows it. Those of you who are frightened can stay home with your Playstation.

Re:keynesian science (1)

demachina (71715) | about a year ago | (#44435223)

Its been a long time since NASA explored any frontiers with their manned space program. Shuttles carrying people in to LEO wasn't anything close to exploring a frontier.

Re:keynesian science (2)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44435565)

Then you have a pretty crippled definition of "explore" and "frontier". No, they're not going to the Moon or asteroids, but pretty much everything that we do in space at this point is new. They're taking baby steps now because they have to, the PTB won't designate the necessary resources, but they're learning new things every single time they send someone up. Even if what you've learned is "Hey, we can do this thing twice in a row and have it work", it's still new knowledge and may well be important down the road when we build actual colonies. If Storey Musgrave or Christine McAuliffe had wanted safe jobs they could have become accountants or programmers. Instead they became astronauts, willing to risk their lives for the advancement of knowledge and the future of humankind.

Re:keynesian science (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#44440621)

pretty much everything that we do in space at this point is new

you have a pretty crippled definition of "new"

perhaps you could enlighten us by sharing what exactly NASA is doing lately that could be considered "new"?

Re:keynesian science (1)

demachina (71715) | about a year ago | (#44443435)

What a crock. The NASA manned space program has been squandering money to no good end since Apollo was cancelled. If all the money squandered on the shuttle and ISS, to no good end, had been spent wisely and efficiently we would be on Mars now.

Danger isn't the important thing. What matters is if you are accomplishing something worth the risk and the money. NASA simply hasn't accomplished anything in manned space flight for 40 years.

Do you even believe this stuff you are shoveling?

Re:keynesian science (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#44440595)

When the Gemini Seven were brought to the launch pad the first time to watch a rocket launch the thing blew up in front of them. They went on anyway.

That's Keynesian science for ya... yee haw!!!!

politics, not science (-1)

odigity (266563) | about a year ago | (#44434197)

I find it sadly naive that this article is tagged with "science" rather than "politics".

As a libertarian who loves science and technology, the most alieniating aspect of talking to others about science and technology is how much they look to the state to push progress forward.

The state is not a scientific institution. It is the antithesis of science -- it is merely the organized used of force to dominate a population. The government in all its forms is merely a manifestation of the threat or actual use of violence, which is anathema to free thought and inquiry.

State involvement in science will continue to bite us in the ass. I just hope some of you start to rethink your core assumptions as the private space industry continues to pave the way at an accelerating rate -- if the government doesn't grind it to a halt with regulations and subsidizing of inferior alternatives... like NASA.

Re:politics, not science (3)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44434865)

Space exploration is the classic example of the kind of the kind of research that needs state funding: it's expensive, yet has hard-to-estimate returns that occur over an extremely long timescale.

There's a reason no private company has launched a planetary science mission, despite there being no competitive barriers to doing so.

Re:politics, not science (-1, Troll)

odigity (266563) | about a year ago | (#44436001)

If you have to tolerate a tyrannical hierarchy that wages war and devalues the currency just to use it to steal money from people for your pet project, perhaps you're not being creative enough.

The bottom line is, a moral society recognizes that the ends do not justify the means. Sadly, we're still a long way from a moral society.

And yes, you're part of the problem.

Re:politics, not science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44436735)

As a non-American, I'd just like to say that NASA is far more inspiring than any global hegemony conspiracy theory.

I'd like to be a part of a NASA initiative, despite their lack of any reasonable budget, and other blah blah blah.

There's a reason I'm not a part of NASA or other space agency...and that's because I'm not good enough! (At least until they ask for volunteers for high orbit radiation experiments! Where do I sign up? Can I get special exemption to pretend to be a baboon?)

Re:politics, not science (1)

odigity (266563) | about a year ago | (#44437191)

I'm glad you're inspired by NASA. But that's irrelevant, isn't it?

Again, the ends do not justify the means. That fact that NASA inspires you does not make it ok for some people to steal money from other people by force to fund NASA.

It doesn't matter what I do with the money after I rob you; I've still commited theft.

If a program like NASA is so important to so many people, surely those people can self-organize and find a creative method of funding a similar program on a voluntary basis.

And if they fail... that still does not justify robbing your neighbor because space is just so damn cool/important/whatever.

Re:politics, not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44438339)

So we shouldn't fund any art, we shouldn't fun the national park system, we shouldn't fund public stadiums, we shouldn't fund facilities for the olympics?

Since NASA does science, you're also saying we shouldn't fund the NSF? We shouldn't fun the NHS? NOAA? They do science as well.

Thank god you don't decide what to fund. Societies exist because people have decided to band together and fund things for the betterment of said society. You want a society without inspiration, without science, without research - you have your choice of 3rd world countries all over the globe. Don't let the door hit you on the way out....

Idiotic anarchist drivel (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year ago | (#44440063)

You're not a libertarian. Those have some vestige of rationality and at least a vague grasp on certain aspects of the real world. You're an anarchist who finds it convenient to use the label "libertarian" because it sounds much better and some people can't tell them apart.

Pro-tip: the part that gave you away was the following line: "The state is not a scientific institution. It is the antithesis of science -- it is merely the organized used of force to dominate a population. The government in all its forms is merely a manifestation of the threat or actual use of violence". I just read the rest of your posts before responding.

The state is an institution of leadership, instituted by any and every non-trivial-sized human community ever. The difference between a tribe led by family elders and the government of a superpower is mostly one of scale and environment, not of purpose, method of coming into existence, or means of sustaining itself.

One of the roles of a leader is arbitrator. Another is defender. These are the ones you seem to think are all that matters, and I bet you reject the arbitrator and would like to think you could get by without the defender (hint: just because you could get by without some of the things they do does not mean you would make it without them at all). Other roles of a leader: guidance (which includes the promotion of science), provider (public services to avoid tragedy of the commons, public funding to ensure that things like science actually happen, etc.), caretaker (seeing to the well-being of your people - welfare being a part of that - and ensuring they can get what they need), and ambassador (interfacing with other states, other leaders). Every single one of those things requires wealth (although they either produce more wealth than they consume - yes, even welfare, go read some real economic and sociological studies - or they are necessary for the protection of the value of peoples' wealth). Therefore, the state must fund itself and - again, to avoid the tragedy of the commons - this funding is mandatory.

Note that I make no attempt to claim that every state actually embodies these leadership characteristics. For example, corruption and accumulation of personal wealth is contrary to the roles of caretaker and provider. There is probably no non-trivial-sized (for modern values of non-trivial; more than a few dozen people is unlikely, more than a few thousand impossible) example of an ideal state in existence anywhere today, or in modern history. The USA certainly isn't, and never was; there were deep flaws in the original government, many (but not all) of which have been fixed but replaced with new ones.

NASA is not the state doing the right thing, overall, by any means. However, it is a part of what doing the right thing would be. It is giving a many-times-over growth in wealth on an investment that individuals typically do not choose to make, and also returns other benefits leading to improved military (defender) and higher standard of living (caretaker).

Re:politics, not science (1)

odigity (266563) | about a year ago | (#44438063)

Slashdot... where pointing out evil gets you marked as a troll.

Re:politics, not science (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year ago | (#44440121)

I think flamebait is probably more appropriate, but nobody uses that mod much. Your posts are poorly thought out, logically inconsistent, and antagonistic. They also appear to be what you honestly personally believe, which says some very sad things about you. Nonetheless, they detract from, rather than adding to, the discussion at hand; consequently, they get modded down.

Re:politics, not science (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44475947)

That doesn't even make sense.

Re:politics, not science (1)

odigity (266563) | about a year ago | (#44436479)

...despite there being no competitive barriers to doing so.

You're joking, right? You've never heard of the FAA? No barriers? Are you for real?

Re:politics, not science (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44475943)

Competitive barriers. The legislative barriers are trivial or we wouldn't have almost entirely privatised satellite launches already.

Another sign of Boulder's growing influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44435051)

So we sent Alan Stern to be NASA science administrator, Abdalati comes here to work at CIRES to get away from NASA project management and do some science, and NASA slots in a replacement very friendly to future robotic exploration missions who is well known around the valley. It's a good day for space science!

Brown? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44435111)

No, not Brown!

Non-whites are destroying NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44436855)

How did they manage to land so many men on the moon with an entirely WHITE workforce? What about the 'benefits of diversity' that we keep being told are making our (white) lives 'better'? (LOL).

This woman was hired because SHE IS A WOMAN, for no other reason. Just as the head of NASA was hired because he is 10% black, or however much it is, and LOOKS 'black'. More Jew Frankfurt School bullshit - are you sick of it yet?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>