As much as I consider myself a fellow traveller with people like Pete Worden and George Whitesides when it comes to sharing visions of future space development, I think they are a bit off base with their phrase "participatory exploration." "Participatory design" in other industries allows the end uses to be part of the decision-making process as the designers work on the buildings, devices, software, etc. that will be used.

"Dissemination of information to the public" is not sufficient. True "participatory exploration" would allow the general public to have a voice in things like picking mission targets. The ultimate "participatory exploration" would ultimately allow the general public to actually go into space. I don't think Congress or NASA are thinking along those lines.

To illustrate the difference: I'm eagerly awaiting Philippe Cousteau Jr.'s new production to be shown in high-definition format: "Oceans." But I will not consider watching that to be "participatory." But I will think about that the next time I strap on a set tanks and go diving myself.

I too am a taxpayer and I believe NASA also belongs to me, my children and my grandchildren. There is no question that if NASA can't connect with the youth of America, NASA will disappear along with its relevance to the populace.

Bring the people along, or plan the shutdown in about 5 years.

If the only result if delivery of passive media that I agree with the poster who say this won't be participatory exploration. But using simulation and game technology to render data in explorable, 3D immersive synthetic environments, would really let those of us back on Earth remotely explore those virtual environments.

Sorry, Mr. Lewin, but you demonstrate exactly why NASA must do a much better job at connecting with americans. I run into people all the time (lately a high school class) who think things like "NASA's budget is bigger than DoD's", who have no knowledge that alot more than just Tang and Teflon has spun-off the space program, and that discoveries made on other planets have been critical in understanding our own. And these are just the tip of the iceberg. So no, I do NOT agree with the narrow view that E/PO constitutes entertainment. It must *be* entertaining, surely, or even I wouldn't be interested. But above all it must be infomative and educational.... and it is utterly ridiculous to expect Pixar or any other entertainment company to spill precious $$ into something that will almost certainly NOT turn a profit, much less a big one.

It makes me sad to think that the only connection the paying public should have with NASA is through the pocketbook and to just let the scientists and explorers "do their thing." I guess that later I could go to the library to read the inscrutable documents of the scientists' results some year or two after they get their data. This has been the way of the NASA-supported scientist for much, if not most of the time in the past, excepting the exploits of the Mars rover missions.

It's been a long time since the Apollo missions - and even though technology was really primitive at that time - NASA did it's best to keep us taxpayers and indeed the world in the loop on the exploration activities. Now, I ask, were the people excited about the Apollo missions? The entire world was in awe! But then it ended as the economy took a dive, Nixon wasn't in awe, and NASA began to get wrapped around the Shuttle axle - which was later followed up by an impressive but unaffordable ISS (we couldn't afford to put the science aboard). It's pretty hard to get the public to appreciate floating water spheres anymore - and scientists don't get a lot to write about from the ISS.

Now lets imagine what might be done with a new exploration program using modern technology. First note that very little of the modern technology is related to rockets, landings, and aeroshells - the new technologies here are mainly for increasing efficiency and performing Apollo-like task with less mass. The modern technologies available today that should be applied to greatly improve the science and engineering return from the new missions are those in imaging, robotics, autonomous operations, and navigation, all of which will be ineffective without digital communications, computers, and networking. So what can be done with modern technologies in an exploration environment? As the scientist watches from home via computer screen, she/he can direct astronauts in observing the environment and operating scientific instruments as they explore about the surface of the Moon. The astronauts, exploring in pairs, can intercommunication by voice and see by video in a projected helmet display what the other sees. The helmet and arm cameras could easily view samples microscopically. The scientist could be included, albeit with a time delay, in on these intimate exploration activities -from home. If the scientist can be intimately involved, the public could certainly be there also in a view/listen mode only - however, it could be possible for the public to be more actively involved by asking questions or suggesting activities of opportunity through a NASA moderator.

This is just a smidgen of what could be done to bring NASA exploration to those who own it. Note: the scientists and civil servants do not own NASA; they are largely in NASA's employ.

As it usually does, NASA EPO has taken a meaningful and potentially powerful idea and turned it to drivel (in this case entertainment). Of further aggravation is that they think they invented the concept!

Participatory exploration is when students can study the Martian surface, select a site, prepare a justification and have a good chance at making it on the shot list for the Mars HiRISE camera (see http://quest.nasa.gov/challenges/hirise/index.html)

Participatory exploration is when the students can control one of the huge Goldstone dishes and track radio sources (such as LCROSS in its LGALRO orbit) and add their analyzed information to a database used worldwide by scientists (see http://www.lewiscenter.org/gavrt/opportunities.php).

Participatory exploration is when amateur astronomers can utilize their own equipment to observe the LCROSS impact and provide their photographs and data to the science team (see http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm).

Participatory exploration is NOT sitting at your computer watching hi-def 3D video. Aaaaaargh!!!

This comment from above is *just* what I mean, when I say NASA, its contractors, and the aero-engineering and science communities have to do a much better job at telling people what's going on, what they're doing. None of NASA exists in a vacuum:

"It makes me sad to think that the only connection the paying public should have with NASA is through the pocketbook and to just let the scientists and explorers "do their thing." I guess that later I could go to the library to read the inscrutable documents of the scientists' results some year or two after they get their data. This has been the way of the NASA-supported scientist for much, if not most of the time in the past, excepting the exploits of the Mars rover missions."

And to J. Jayden I must say, it sometimes seems to take a really spectacular success (i.e. Deep Impact or the MERs) to get many people's attention. It's a standing joke that alot more people care about Brittany Spears than whether anything new has been discovered about the geysers on Enceladus.... some of us do our best to explain, beyond inscrutable articles written in obscure literature, but it's often an uphill battle.

"Participatory exploration is NOT sitting at your computer watching hi-def 3D video."

There were many at NASA during the Apollo program who disagreed with flying TV cameras. Some of the astronauts felt they interfered with their work while engineers objected to placing a camera on the lunar module as it was excess weight.

Thankfully, public affairs chief Julian Scheer fought and won for the inclusion of cameras aboard the spacecraft.

When Apollo 11 touched down on the lunar surface and when Armstrong made his first step, the world participated -- through a TV broadcast. Sure, they weren't telling the astronauts which rock to collect or which direction to walk, but millions of people back on Earth took part in the experience. It wasn't solely entertainment -- it was also exploration -- after all, the vistas being beamed back to Earth were being seen for the first time by all involved.

The definition for "participatory exploration" has certainly expanded through the advancement of technology, but it has not excluded the ability for the public to still participate in the event through moving and immersive pictures.

A lot of these responses baffle me, especially after all of the heated discussion about getting Gen Y involved in space activities. This is the way to do it. Consider the number of web hits that the Mars Rovers get. It might not be any more participatory than watching the Apollo missions, but it's a start at interaction.

"Exploring" via video game makes about as much sense as hoping to get into the space business by reading Heinlein or watching Star Wars/Star Trek 2,000 times, but it happened. NASA needs a "hook," a "gateway drug," if you will. If limited interactivity via video games will not satisfy, what else can/should they do?