# NASA Seeks 42 **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 3, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-seeks-42/306673 "2005-06-03T02:58:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-seeks-42/306673/1 "2005-06-03T02:58:19Z")
[And yes, it’s _that_ 42.](http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn7458-nasa-seeks-answer-to-life-the-universe-and-everything.html) > [@](#): > > An advisory panel has set four ambitious objectives for NASA as it addresses the big questions of life, the universe, and everything. But the biggest question of all may not be whether the answer is 42, but whether the space agency can find the money to build all the spacecraft on its wish list. > > NASA created the panel in mid-2004 to plan a strategy for exploring the universe in the coming three decades, an exercise the US Congress requires every three years. Other panels developed “roadmaps” for NASA research in solar physics, planetary science, Earth science, and Mars. > > But NASA is overflowing with bright ideas for exploring the Universe, and with major projects like the James Webb Space Telescope running over budget, new administrator Michael Griffin faces tough choices for his finite funds. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-seeks-42/306673/2 "2005-06-03T05:17:30Z")
It’s interesting that none of the four ‘big items’ involve most of the plans NASA has now. And I don’t just mean the exploration vision, but NASA’s focus on planetary research including planets around other stars. Kepler, the Terrestrial Planet Finder and the Life Finder are big parts of NASA’s future plans, and they don’t fit into this strategy at all. ---
**Author:** ![Mycroft\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/898d66/32.png) [@Mycroft\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mycroft_H)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-seeks-42/306673/3 "2005-06-03T14:24:42Z")
I noticed this article yesterday. Someone at _New Scientist_ has a sense of humor, and is well versed in the Classics. ---
**Author:** ![Small\_Clanger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@Small\_Clanger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_Clanger)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-seeks-42/306673/4 "2005-06-03T14:56:25Z")
Do they really need the Webb telescope and Constellation-X? Can’t they just extrapolate the state of all the matter in the Universe from a handy bit of matter, say a small piece of fairycake? Meanwhile, Is there a hint in that article that Hubble won’t necesarily be retired to make way for Webb, Constellation-X etc? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-seeks-42/306673/5 "2005-06-03T22:53:12Z")
> [@Small Clanger](#): > > Do they really need the Webb telescope and Constellation-X? Can’t they just extrapolate the state of all the matter in the Universe from a handy bit of matter, say a small piece of fairycake? > > Meanwhile, Is there a hint in that article that Hubble won’t necesarily be retired to make way for Webb, Constellation-X etc? New NASA head Griffin (who can apparently do orbital mechanics in his head [no shit, he’s a ubergeek]) has publicly stated that if there is a way for NASA to save Hubble, they will do so. Even if that means sending a shuttle up to repair it, which the CAIB report felt was too risky to justify.