NASA will reveal new discovery made by curiosity

[insert_name]

http://nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-host-live-discussion-on-new-mars-science-results

NASA will release science results from the curiosity Rover this Thursday at 2pm EDT

[sevenperforce]

 

[cubinator]

It's not aliens.

[Scotius]

Oh for the love of Jeb... NASA - if you have something interesting to say (but it's not Earth-shattering like finding extraterrestial life), then just say it. Do we really want hype circus every time scientists find a new type of mineral? Keep the hype for truly interesting things, or else you will desensitize the public. Soon no one will care about your announcements.

[tater]

15 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Oh for the love of Jeb... NASA - if you have something interesting to say (but it's not Earth-shattering like finding extraterrestial life), then just say it. Do we really want hype circus every time scientists find a new type of mineral? Keep the hype for truly interesting things, or else you will desensitize the public. Soon no one will care about your announcements.

The paper has not been published yet, and they are not allowed to have a press conf until the paper is published (that's the policy at Science).

[kerbiloid]

Curiosity has found a charging station?

[YNM]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Curiosity has found a charging station?

A tesla supercharger, I believe.

[sh1pman]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Curiosity has found a charging station?

Found the Midnight Cherry Tesla Roadster crash site.

[DAL59]

6 hours ago, tater said:

nd they are not allowed to have a press conf until the paper is published (that's the policy at Science).

What!  How can a magazine have control of what NASA says!  That's absurd!      

[Lisias]

7 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

What!  How can a magazine have control of what NASA says!  That's absurd!      

By paying a considerable amount of money for the publishing rights while stating the conditions on the contract.

[mikegarrison]

35 minutes ago, Lisias said:

By paying a considerable amount of money for the publishing rights while stating the conditions on the contract.

No, not at all. Science is one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. (The shorter the name, the more prestigious: Nature, Cell, Science, etc.)

It's a career highlight for most scientists to get an article published in Science. They will follow any rules they have to follow in order to get it to happen.

[DAL59]

45 minutes ago, Lisias said:

By paying a considerable amount of money for the publishing rights while stating the conditions on the contract.

 

7 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

No, not at all. Science is one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. (The shorter the name, the more prestigious: Nature, Cell, Science, etc.)

It's a career highlight for most scientists to get an article published in Science. They will follow any rules they have to follow in order to get it to happen.

Couldn't that cause conflicts of interest?  If the publisher owns a company that would be obsolete due to an invention?

[Lisias]

11 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It's a career highlight for most scientists to get an article published in Science. They will follow any rules they have to follow in order to get it to happen.

NASA is not a small player neither, but I see your point.

[tater]

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

What!  How can a magazine have control of what NASA says!  That's absurd!      

It’s not absurd, it’s a condition of publication. NASA scientists don’t have to publish in Science, they could just have a press conf, any time they like. If they want to publish, they follow those rules. 

That said, I think that taxpayer funded science should never be paywalled. 

[mikegarrison]

Just now, tater said:

That said, I think that taxpayer funded science should never be paywalled. 

Well, all Science articles are free one year after publication. And I assume the raw data is freely available from NASA.

Peer-reviewed journals cost money and don't pay for themselves with advertising. Somebody has to pay for them. But at the same time, it is a recognized issue that it's a problem for the advancement of science if journals cost too much money. And some of them (not Science) appear to be more interested in making a profit for the publisher than in making sure the science in the journal is of the highest quality.

Anyway, the whole issue of peer-review is a bit much to go into on a video game forum post.

[DAL59]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

I think that taxpayer funded science should never be paywalled. 

I agree, though you don't have to pay to hear the conference.

[tater]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Well, all Science articles are free one year after publication. And I assume the raw data is freely available from NASA.

Peer-reviewed journals cost money and don't pay for themselves with advertising. Somebody has to pay for them. But at the same time, it is a recognized issue that it's a problem for the advancement of science if journals cost too much money. And some of them (not Science) appear to be more interested in making a profit for the publisher than in making sure the science in the journal is of the highest quality.

Anyway, the whole issue of peer-review is a bit much to go into on a video game forum post.

Yeah, and given Federal grants to do science, it would pretty much require all such publishing to be public domain.

The journals need to have content that is not already available (or instantly available elsewhere for free), but the taxpayers have a right to see what was done with their money.

It's a non-trivial issue

 

[kerbiloid]

Science is for static pics, while NASA is for animations. 
Sure, they publish later.

[Kerbart]

12 hours ago, Scotius said:

Oh for the love of Jeb... NASA - if you have something interesting to say (but it's not Earth-shattering like finding extraterrestial life), then just say it. Do we really want hype circus every time scientists find a new type of mineral? Keep the hype for truly interesting things, or else you will desensitize the public. Soon no one will care about your announcements.

Now now now... I wouldn't bet on something so boring as a new mineral. They might have discovered something really exciting. That the presence of one particular chemicals on the surface of some rock is not 40.74% like previously thought but 40.53% -- proving everything we thought we knew about this nameless rock to be obviously completely wrong.

[NSEP]

It could very well be something we already speculated and/or knew about, and NASA would just confirm it. But i don't know what.

Conspiracy theorist knew about the streams of water on Mars quite some time before NASA confirmed it.

So maybe NASA will confirm a nuclear war happend on Mars 

/s

[kerbiloid]

Or maybe they at last have found that steel plate.

[KSK]

13 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Couldn't that cause conflicts of interest?  If the publisher owns a company that would be obsolete due to an invention?

It’s possible I suppose but it’s not very likely and I expect there are rules to cover the situations where it does happen. 

A lot of stuff published in the scientific literature isn’t anywhere near to being an invention. At best it’s a great idea that might have a practical application one day. Possibly. Which I’m quite happy with personally - we need applied research to turn the possible into the actual, but we also need blue-skies fundamental research to expand the realms of the possible.

But I digress.

If something resembling a commercially viable invention is published, the chances are pretty good that somebody’s filed a patent on it before submitting their manuscript to the journal. In which case the invention will be published anyway, presuming that the applicant keeps their application going for 18 months or more. So it would be rather counterproductive for the journal not to publish it. 

Finally, I don’t know how diversified the big publishers are but I’d be surprised if they do own the kinds of company that would be obsoleted by an invention published in a scientific journal. 

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Or maybe they at last have found that steel plate.

General consensus is that it is either still on earth somewhere or vapour, due to atmospheric drag.

Edited June 7, 2018 by p1t1o

[kerbiloid]

24 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

General consensus is that it is either still on earth somewhere or vapour, due to atmospheric drag.

Two seemingly opposite general consensuses happily co-exist in the scientific world at once.

1. That the plate couldn't pierce the Earth atmosphere and stays here.
2. That impact explosions can throw meteorites from one planet to another providing the panspermy.

[p1t1o]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Two seemingly opposite general consensuses happily co-exist in the scientific world at once.

1. That the plate couldn't pierce the Earth atmosphere and stays here.
2. That impact explosions can throw meteorites from one planet to another providing the panspermy.

Those are two very different contexts though.