NASA is partnering with two Silicon Valley colleges to transform a chunk of its Ames Research Center in Mountain View into a prototype "environmentally sustainable" commune for scientists. The space agency said today that it has inked a land lease with the University of California at Santa Cruz and the Foothill-De Anza Community …
Green nightmare, maybe ...
"The village will be located on the scenic south side of NASA's highly toxic Moffett Field Hanger One."
Right alongside Hwy 101, then, and "toxins" from Hanger One, along with 100 years of misc. military toxic waste. THAT'll suit the greens no end. Come to think of it, are there 75 acres between the hanger and Bayshore? Maybe they are planning on annexing the golf course ... Surely they aren't planning on shortening the runway?
A project costing $1bn than houses a few thousand people at most ie. hundreds of thousands of dollars per person, and still does not generate their food, is hardly a blueprint for sustainable living.
Perhaps they will have a wind turbine that gets powered by Google take offs and landings. When their batteries start going flat they ask Google to do some circuits and bumps.
@Charles Manning, Re: "hardly a blueprint for sustainable living"
Because as with any other research project, they should start off with everything being perfect and cheap, rather than finding out the best ways to reach that goal.
Meh. This is just greenwash. If they said "we're building a honking great new office development on a greenfield site next to a toxic building" then the greenies would be all over them. So they spin it as "eco-friendly".
"Perhaps they will have a wind turbine that gets powered by Google take offs and landings. When their batteries start going flat they ask Google to do some circuits and bumps."
Better yet, they'll bring back the Navy's P3s ... Bummer that St. James Infirmary is gone ...
Sure, research costs a bit more, but not necessarily that much.
Research costs a lot more when you need to make multiple trials and prototypes to build one thing. ie multiple prototypes to test multiple variables, scrapping each prototype. That is a fine way to research building a setelite or whatever.
In this case though, they're building multiple buildings, so can design each one differently, with different materials, etc (ie each embodying different variables) so that they'd end up with a living experiment. There is no need to build one, test for a year, then demolish it and try another. Sure, that would cost more than cookie cutting the buildings off the same design, but not by factors of 10.
wtf is NASA doing this sort of research for? It is outside their brief. Surely there are other agencies which can do this experimentation more effectively (ie. more research per $).
I can smell the pork and mythical $16k toilet seats from here.
What's NASA stand for?
Isn't NASA the outfit that used to fly rockets and things into space? Seems to be an all-singing, all-dancing enviro-fest these days.
A town called
Where do they recruit their sheriff?
I mean, "Eureka" needs its sheriff. Otherwise, it's not good enough.
A home for the Avout
in Neal Stephenson's Anathem geeks live in closed monastery-like communities termed "maths". I'd say that came out just long enough ago to have inspired this tomfoolery.
It's a very good book, though, well worth reading.
A title is required
Stereotypical greenie thinking
Is always fully cooked, but only ever half baked.
Sustainable Living is a requirement of...
Article says, "NASA is partnering with two Silicon Valley colleges to transform a chunk of its Ames Research Center in Mountain View into a prototype 'environmentally sustainable' commune for scientists."
Sustainable Living is a requirement for long-term space travel, space stations, moon bases, foreign planet bases, asteroid bases, etc.
It would take a lot less money to go to communes which have worked for hundreds of years. NASA should try to research a few Amish communities in the United States!