Unfortunately they don't let the scientists near the cheque book. The pork-obsessed senators keep that for themselves.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/05/nasa-orion-launch-space-startup
Ever considered a grant from NASA/ESA to improve realism in the game?
- Thread starter amadeus1171
- Start date
Unfortunately they don't let the scientists near the cheque book. The pork-obsessed senators keep that for themselves.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/05/nasa-orion-launch-space-startup
First of all, my initial question to the OP was of genuine interest. Whereas military organisations can often be found sponsoring computer games of modern warfare (airborne and landbased) their aim is pretty clear: Making people aware and make them sign up for service. It is - you may call this cynical or not - part of their recruitment strategy and you can also see this in movies/series like Top Gun or Navy Seals.
For science fiction you can begin to wonder. I know of several attempts of the scientific community to advertise their sciences for young people, because there seems to be a shortage of students. I am a hobby astronomer and were it not for Hubble and other institutions that opened astronomy to the general public (thus creating a 'popular science') I doubt I would have ever gotten into it. I took part in several Citizen Science projects like Galaxy Zoo or the Supernova Search and it was educating and also great fun.
Elite: Dangerous - as spacy as it is - has some drawbacks where you would try and draw a line between game and science. The galaxy is static, the stars are not moving and it's also impossible to make a scientific connection to one of the most important sources of astronomical data: light. The search for clues and solutions to some hypotheses always seems to get down to starlight, because you can calculate so many things from it. We don't have that in the game so here there is no transition between playful learning in a game and first steps into academic methods at a university. Sorry, if this seems a bit far fetched or too detailed but it's one of my chief concerns why funding ED is a cool idea, but the return would not be that great for organisation x.
What I could very well imagine is a cooperation between, say, NASA/ESA and FD when it comes to (3D-)modelling of deep sky objects because the nebulae and dust clouds we see ingame are colourful placeholders at best. I understand especially 3D-modelling of nebulae ist still a very hard task because of triangulation of objects at bigger interstellar distances so having the most accurate graphical outcomes of some NASA mission specialists/graphical developers would be especially cool, no doubt. Imagine the Elephant's Trunk or the Orion Complex as 'real' as it gets being in the game. I am sure that'd be a nice influx of new players wanting to do the exploration thing.
Like I said, I find the idea intriguing. I am just unsure if such a funding would 'pay off'.
My two parsecs
For science fiction you can begin to wonder. I know of several attempts of the scientific community to advertise their sciences for young people, because there seems to be a shortage of students. I am a hobby astronomer and were it not for Hubble and other institutions that opened astronomy to the general public (thus creating a 'popular science') I doubt I would have ever gotten into it. I took part in several Citizen Science projects like Galaxy Zoo or the Supernova Search and it was educating and also great fun.
Elite: Dangerous - as spacy as it is - has some drawbacks where you would try and draw a line between game and science. The galaxy is static, the stars are not moving and it's also impossible to make a scientific connection to one of the most important sources of astronomical data: light. The search for clues and solutions to some hypotheses always seems to get down to starlight, because you can calculate so many things from it. We don't have that in the game so here there is no transition between playful learning in a game and first steps into academic methods at a university. Sorry, if this seems a bit far fetched or too detailed but it's one of my chief concerns why funding ED is a cool idea, but the return would not be that great for organisation x.
What I could very well imagine is a cooperation between, say, NASA/ESA and FD when it comes to (3D-)modelling of deep sky objects because the nebulae and dust clouds we see ingame are colourful placeholders at best. I understand especially 3D-modelling of nebulae ist still a very hard task because of triangulation of objects at bigger interstellar distances so having the most accurate graphical outcomes of some NASA mission specialists/graphical developers would be especially cool, no doubt. Imagine the Elephant's Trunk or the Orion Complex as 'real' as it gets being in the game. I am sure that'd be a nice influx of new players wanting to do the exploration thing.
Like I said, I find the idea intriguing. I am just unsure if such a funding would 'pay off'.
My two parsecs
A fascinating read! Thanks for posting - I love it when I learn something.
The respective space agencies could help FDev with Stellar Forge issues related to furthering the accuracy of the model....in return for access to the Stellar Forge (basically, anything 'not the game') for educational purposes. This could be a never ending improvement loop for both us and the space agencies...creating an increasingly accurate model of the galaxy.
And I agree wholeheartedly...I was just talking about the advancement of science and modeling the other day....as a biologist in the late '70's and 80's..with an education update in the late '80's...I missed the current animation models of bio-molecular activity. I was able to understand the idea of transport and energy use through flow charts..and some bit of exposure to electron microscopy...but the overall beauty of chemical conformational change in the process was lost on me...I could not put pictures to the chemical changes.
The idea that astronomers could 'go there' and 'see things in situ' is a powerful educational tool. It would be a wonderful way to bring science to those that desire to see the science...but are having problems envisioning the whole of what is being taught.
For those desiring to see:
The way I had to learn it:
http://biochemistry2.ucsf.edu/programs/ptf/prologue links/Diff & Trans Membranes.pdf
And I agree wholeheartedly...I was just talking about the advancement of science and modeling the other day....as a biologist in the late '70's and 80's..with an education update in the late '80's...I missed the current animation models of bio-molecular activity. I was able to understand the idea of transport and energy use through flow charts..and some bit of exposure to electron microscopy...but the overall beauty of chemical conformational change in the process was lost on me...I could not put pictures to the chemical changes.
The idea that astronomers could 'go there' and 'see things in situ' is a powerful educational tool. It would be a wonderful way to bring science to those that desire to see the science...but are having problems envisioning the whole of what is being taught.
For those desiring to see:
[video=youtube;GigxU1UXZXo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GigxU1UXZXo[/video]
The way I had to learn it:
http://biochemistry2.ucsf.edu/programs/ptf/prologue links/Diff & Trans Membranes.pdf
Last edited:
