Posted on 03/14/2006 6:12:18 PM PST by NormsRevenge
NASA should be doing space exploration and space systems development. Science belongs somewhere else.
He specifically cited "data reduction."
Data reduction is when you pay someone to do data mining on the results of a very expensive expirament, so that the conclusions are obvious to the casual observer.
And yes, grad students do this for dirt, and we like it.
But I will strangle the next dang PhD who wines, "the millions are wasted, I have no one to reduce the data."
My typical response is, "You have a computer, a PhD - Why am I paying you?"
Yea. So you and I agree. I want moons, planets and fringes of the solar system....we've been given military payloads, a "multi-national" station and curators whining about jobs....
Personally, I think NASA should be spending the limited money on more solid science. Mechanics, many of the scientists would say.
Dump the Shuttle as soon as possible, and use far cheaper expendable rockets to build out the ISS to a useable, sustainable level. Then, on to the Moon base.
The Solar System exploration stuff is great, but do we really need to know what is in the soup of Europa this year? Come on, we still have to launch the space craft to get there from the most expensive, least efficient place possible, Earth Surface!!!
That's true. PhD students are chosen by their advisor to continue the research of the advisor. A PhD dissertation usually consists of only one specific contribution to the advisor's field. It is only through this process that the advisor can sign off on the dissertation as truly being a unique contribution to the field.
Contrary to popular belief, PhD students are not this pool of young fresh minds where a lot of the innovation comes out. LOL! They work on an extension of their advisor's research.
The piggies don't like it when their snouts get yanked out of the public trough.
Not all. I went to my advisor with a project that came out of my work prior to going back to school for the PhD. However, it really surprised my advisor that I had my own topic. He did agree with ith, though, and I carried it through.
Most graduate students don't have any idea for a project, so they're glad to get a project from their advisor.
Well, the military pays for much of the space program, and those other nations that make up the "multi" pay for a lot that NASA can't afford.
We all want the fringes of the solar system, but we haven't even crossed the fence to the moon next door in thirty years. We need to do that before we can visit the planet across the street.
Even a trip to Mars cannot pay the bills in the forseeable future. Only a base on our own moon can return concrete dividends in the next few decades, and even that only at the far end of that time span.
If your advisor is not familiar with the research behind your project, how could he confirm that it is original and a contribution to the field? He must have had some prior knowledge of your project and your project must have been related to his research in some way.
I have been told that it is extremely rare to have any earth shattering contributions in a PhD dissertation, so kudos to you!
"The piggies don't like it when their snouts get yanked out of the public trough"
The oinkers do squeal, don't they.
As for the best and the brightest, let 'em replace the high salaries scientific ignoramuses that are now "teaching" in our public schools.
Political Correctness, and idiot politicians.
That, and the fact that NASA failed to develop a rocket that ran on milk and/or butter.
Probably Foggy Bottom using NASA to fund detente-ish projects, too.
I'll be the last person to try to claim our current situation is exclusively NASA's fault. As you point out, it isn't. There was political gamesmanship involved. That doesn't excuse away NASA's portion of the blame though.
Here we are after spending about $80 billion of the $100 billion cost of what the one-worlder's affectionately call the "INTERNATIONAL" space station, and we don't even have a launch system that can take our people or supplies to it.
Perhaps I'm not the best and the brightest, but it seems to me that if you're going to purchase a vacation home in Mammoth, you might want to consider if you have a way to get the family members there, before you seal the deal.
Am I missing something here, or are they simply wishing I was?
I think that is the biggest problem. Doing basic research is great, but to what end? Science for the sake of science is great if there are wealthy patrons to chuck money at it. But we're talking tax dollars here, and there are other concerns that will hold sway if the argument ( read above ) isn't strong enough to convince people to part with their money.
Evos have taken over NASA.
We’re not exploring space; we’re looking for the “Origins of Life.”
http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/index1.html
We’re spending billions of dollars to support the leading evolutionist’s pet projects.
“To explore the Universe and search for life.
NASA is a multi-billion dollar feeding frenzy.
I guess some of these boys will have to get a real job.
>Evos have taken over NASA.
Amazing, isn;t it, that scientists tend not to be superstitious about every old thing.
She emphasized that the pace of growth in space science has been reduced to cover the shuttle program....y'know, because 2006 is an election year, and cutting back a big visible project like the STS has an impact on a lot of jobs in various polities...
I know Mary Cleave. :-)
It wasn't earth-shattering, but it was sufficiently new that it qualified as "new knowledge." It was a new mathematical technique for separating a signal from noise. I recognized the need for it when I saw the shortcomings of the techniques in use in my work prior to going back to school. Unfortunately for me, it was soon superseded by even better techniques, so it sort of disappeared.
The moon and Mars seem to be their primary focus now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.