see : http://xkcd.com/394/
3 posts • joined 24 Aug 2007
I think the space station should be kept if:
(a) someone can think of some really good science to do there,
(b) someone can make it into a profitable space hotel, or
(c) it can usefully be used as staging point for moon or further missions.
You know, I would really like it if NASA concentrated on mastering some specific, useful piece of space technology, like how to keep tanks of hydrogen in orbit for several months, or lowering launch costs to LEO, or making a working solar powered electrodynamic tether. But no, we've got to have something the President can look sexy saying, even if will take 20 years and still not really lead anywhere.
Selenology, aerology etc sound cool and distinct from plain old earth geology ... but how far are you going to take it ? Plutology (Hadeology ?) Titanology ? Encladiology ? Ioology ? After a point it just gets silly, like english collective nouns. I say we stick with "lunar geology", "martian geology" etc.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018