Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Next-gen Suborbital Researchers Conference

Full Version: Next-gen Suborbital Researchers Conference

Unmanned Spaceflight.com > EVA > Conferences, Publications and Broadcasts

elakdawalla

Feb 17 2010, 09:20 PM

On Friday I'll be giving a presentation to the Next-generation Suborbital Researchers Conference, which is being convened for the following purpose:

QUOTE

A new generation of space vehicles capable of economically delivering payloads and researchers is coming on line beginning in 2010. These vehicles will revolutionize space access by providing frequent, low-cost access to space and the capability to carry research and education crew members. They will also carry experiments for technology demonstrations, for scientist in-the-loop research, and for educational/public outreach demonstrations.

Fields including atmospheric science, solar physics, microgravity science, planetary science, space life science, space physics, and education and public outreach (EPO) stand to benefit from these vehicles.

NSRC2010 will provide a forum to learn about the research and EPO capabilities of these new systems, their experiments, and EPO integration processes. NSRC2010 will also provide input on vehicle design requirements for science and education.

The conveners include people like Alan Stern and David Grinspoon, who are really interested in public engagement. I was invited to give a talk on how to engage the public, and I plan to focus my talk on engaging the "interested public" -- that is to say, you guys. I've just outlined my talk and wanted to invite anybody interested to review and suggest any additions or changes. In particular, I would really like to know if you all have any suggestions that are more specific to the focus of the conference, suborbital flight experiments that are going to be enabled by the new private launch capabilities coming online soon?

My talk outline is attached.

djellison

Feb 17 2010, 10:44 PM

Only thing I'd change...

"However, unlike with VMC, these missions have so far failed to take advantage of excellent image processing work of amateurs"

They've not taken advantage PUBLICLY - but we know that JC's driveability maps have been found useful, and we have Squyres on record saying he looks at UMSF after a drive to get mosaics etc.

Juramike

Feb 17 2010, 11:03 PM

I'd stress the point that a lot of us "amateur enthusiasts" are giving outreach talks and presentations on our own.

So by getting the interested amateurs more involved, that will in turn leverage the overall outreach to the different levels for the general public. (classrooms, museum groups, etc.) More power for less bucks.

elakdawalla

Feb 17 2010, 11:21 PM

Oh, right, I meant to mention that, thank you.

nprev

Feb 18 2010, 01:58 AM

Suggest adding a bullet about inviting some of the most talented & interested amateurs to deliver presentations at professional forums showcasing their talents. I think Doug's talk last year @ JPL was a great prototype for this since it very effectively communicated the contributions possible by amateurs; this can only help foster new ideas for pro-am collaborative outreach.

Astro0

Feb 18 2010, 02:57 AM

Emily,
Maybe a few extra 'what the public can do for your mission' bullets:

What about the production of 3D virtual flyovers for missions.
eg: the recent work by Doug and Mars3D with the HiRise and Pathfinder images.

Imaging and accessibility tools like Michael's MMB also come to mind.
Making viewing/using the images easier for a wider audience.

Another case in point would be dispelling myths. Erroneous media reports..eg: water puddle in VC and the Big Foot incidents.
Both were put to bed very quickly by the interested public, yourself included.

Bottom line: The interested public has the time and the talent and they know you (the missions) don't have the time or the money.

nprev

Feb 18 2010, 03:31 AM

Great post number 1000, Astro0!

Astro0

Feb 18 2010, 04:37 AM

Compared to some, I guess I don't say much around here.
I just try for quality rather than quantity

Hmmmm

and that's the best I could come with for post 1001!

nprev

Feb 18 2010, 05:05 AM

QUOTE (Astro0 @ Feb 17 2010, 08:37 PM)

I just try for quality rather than quantity

You do exceedingly well! I'm resigned to my role as the opposite endpoint of the bell curve...

elakdawalla

Feb 18 2010, 12:31 PM

Thanks everybody for all your helpful comments! I'm incorporating them into the talk.

djellison

Feb 18 2010, 12:32 PM

Oh - who did those PHX landing reconstructions? You mention accelerometer data etc - that's what made that possible I think, might be worth a quick mention?

ElkGroveDan

Feb 18 2010, 03:18 PM

Daniel Muller had that great countdown to landing graphic, it's been removed from his link now though.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=5075

But I believe you were looking for this discussion:
kwan3217 was the first to post a video, but the interesting back and forth discussion begins at #39. It's interesting because it demonstrates the genesis of locating data and turning it into a product as a spontaneous collaborative effort. I'd say the graph was the first wow! moment from that process, as Emily pointed out at the time seeing the leg deployment data was just amazing. And then of course, the video

hendric

Feb 18 2010, 04:43 PM

Oh snap!

Emily,
I really liked your presentation. Will the actual presentation be videoed?

mcaplinger

Feb 18 2010, 05:52 PM

Pardon the skepticism, but I fail to see what suborbital research has to do with planetary science in anything but the most general way.

I remain to be convinced that this initiative is anything more than a solution in search of a problem.

remcook

Feb 18 2010, 06:00 PM

For imaging not much I imagine, but perhaps a little bit of UV spectroscopy, etc. like they did in the olden days. Not sure how much added value that is though and how much time a suborbital observation takes - probably not that long.

elakdawalla

Feb 18 2010, 06:11 PM

QUOTE (hendric @ Feb 18 2010, 08:43 AM)

I really liked your presentation. Will the actual presentation be videoed?

They actually haven't yet figured out exactly how I'll be presenting -- if I'm pushing the pres via WebEx I'll definitely record it. I'll certainly post the final presentation in PPT format in my blog tomorrow.

For those of you who have interest in the capabilities of suborbital flights, jeff_foust is Tweeting the conference today, it seems.

djellison

Feb 18 2010, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Feb 18 2010, 05:52 PM)

I remain to be convinced that this initiative is anything more than a solution in search of a problem.

What are sounding rockets and vomit comets?

I can't imagine anyone who puts payloads on zero-g parabolic flights who wouldn't like to get one 5 minute shot rather than a dozen 20 second shots.

I can't imagine anyone who puts payloads on sounding rockets who wouldn't like to have more volume, more mass, and/or be able to tend to their payload in real time.

hendric

Feb 18 2010, 09:40 PM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Feb 18 2010, 11:52 AM)

Pardon the skepticism, but I fail to see what suborbital research has to do with planetary science in anything but the most general way.

Testing of new instruments in a near-space environment? There's a whole slew of opportunities there.

Training future planetary scientists? Giving them a chance to PI and launch an instrument.

Studies above the atmosphere, in bands normally absorbed?

mcaplinger

Feb 18 2010, 09:53 PM

QUOTE (hendric @ Feb 18 2010, 01:40 PM)

Testing of new instruments in a near-space environment? There's a whole slew of opportunities there.

Pardon me, but that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny IMHO. Far more cost-effective to use a thermal/vac chamber. Testing in zero-gee is rarely anything more than an excuse to get a free plane ride, not an engineering need.

Sorry, still not seeing the connection.

mcaplinger

Feb 18 2010, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Feb 18 2010, 10:29 AM)

I can't imagine anyone who puts payloads on zero-g parabolic flights who wouldn't like to get one 5 minute shot rather than a dozen 20 second shots.

Now give me one example where that's planetary science. (Or even science at all, but that's another question.)

QUOTE

I can't imagine anyone who puts payloads on sounding rockets who wouldn't like to have more volume, more mass, and/or be able to tend to their payload in real time.

More volume and more mass, maybe. Way lower altitude than many sounding rockets, almost certainly. (A Black Brant XII can lift 500 lbs to nearly 1500 km.) Being able to tend the payload in real time -- seems very marginal to me. t's not like you'd be able to fix any anomaly during one suborbital flight.

djellison

Feb 18 2010, 10:27 PM

You don't see the connection - great. Plenty of people do, however.

Who said it's anything to do with planetary science?

mcaplinger

Feb 19 2010, 12:38 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ Feb 18 2010, 02:27 PM)

Who said it's anything to do with planetary science?

From the first post in this thread: "Fields including atmospheric science, solar physics, microgravity science, planetary science, space life science, space physics, and education and public outreach (EPO) stand to benefit from these vehicles."

And isn't this whole topic manned spaceflight, and hence banned by your own rules?

centsworth_II

Feb 19 2010, 01:00 AM

Maybe they're counting Earth as a planet.

Juramike

Feb 19 2010, 01:44 AM

QUOTE (hendric @ Feb 18 2010, 04:40 PM)

Training future planetary scientists? Giving them a chance to PI and launch an instrument.

That's the key audience. Get them used to dealing with the "amateur enthusiast" community on smaller missions and when they drive the big rigs they'll be more comfortable taking us along.

djellison

Feb 19 2010, 11:04 AM

In terms of Planetary Science:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nsrc2010/pdf/sess201.pdf
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nsrc2010/pdf/sess204.pdf

Plenty of ideas, projects and proposals to discuss here at UMSF, and of course, the point of this thread, to discuss outreach, is very very much within the remit of UMSF.

Astro0

Feb 19 2010, 11:19 AM

I really can't see any reason to continue this thread as it has strayed waaaayyyy off-topic.
Emily asks for some straightforward advice on a paper she's working on and we get into a discussion about the value of doing one type of science over another.

Thread Closed.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.