So - you are assuming that space science is solely NASA then? While that make up a large chunk of the resources for space science, they are not the only resource. As you say, DoD does provide instruments such as DMSP and LANL as does NOAA. In Canada our resources are small and we often have to use multiple agencies just to cover over a small project (for example, our current project uses funding from NSERC as well as CSA and CFI grants.

NASA does have several multi-spacecraft projects (see THEMIS for example). But, you are correct, ESA does have a leg up on this sort of stuff.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that human space flight does have it's place. My question at this point is more "Is it worth (scientifically) putting money into human space flight or instrumentation and robotic exploration and space technology and engineer?" I would say without any reservation, that human space flight, at this point, is not worth it. Is it worth sending a couple of men to the moon to collect a few rocks and find out some tiny info about the 50 square km that they land in or use a high resolution imager to map the moon? Then using that same technology - adapt it to map Mars? Or Europa or Titan? That spacecraft could also have instrumentation to study high energy particles near the moon, looking at safety issues for long term stays - all sort of useful science that would lose out.

What about developing the engineering and technological means to allow for long stays on the moon? Spend 5-10 years researching astronaut safety, building materials, biospheres, ecological and environmental surveys for using natural resources - then go to the moon for extended stays of weeks and months? Using this technology to then go to Mars? It is the choice of where to put the limited funds for the next 5 years, 10 years... where will it be of the most use?

Actually, I am a space scientist. In fact we know all to well about the economics of doing our work. For many years we've had to scrounge money and expertise to engineer our projects. I have been advocating in Canada for many years about the problems with the CSA supporting human space flight while leaving potentially important scientific work behind. That is how things like micro- and nano- satellites and the cubesats have evolved.

As far as one offs - you are obviously not familiar with space instrumentation. Most projects I have been involved with use sensors that were developed long ago and have just been tweaked for new technology and communication. The last imaging project launched in 2000 used the same sort of imager design done in the 80's. The same design is once again likely to be used on the next set of flights, just with upgraded technology - better detectors and communication hardware. Ever heard of the DMSP and LANL satellites? They have many satellites, and continue to launch them all with the same instrument packages. This is the same for sounding rocket launches and ground-based stations. It is the norm not the exception to re-use designs that work. One-off such as the Hubble telescope and CASSINI tend to take millions and billions of dollars that few people can even get.

And believe me when I say, the data we retrieve is EXTREMELY important to us. We are careful to make sure that our projects are as cost-efficient but still get a "bang" for our buck. Many satellites we keep running long past their lifetimes, even if it is just for one or two instruments, the simple fact is that these instruments are generally hard to replace (money is usually the sticking point - competition for it is extreme).

So unless you are an actual expert in space science and instrument design, I would be very careful about who you insult.

And, really, as a scientist, sending PEOPLE into space is useless save to do maintenance for really science projects such as the Hubble Telescope. Even the space station is useless as most of the time is spent trying to keep it functioning than doing actual science. What science can be done on the moon that a rover can't do? I think that the astronauts are clearly not looking at the bigger picture of doing real science but simply looking at the fact that having a human (a very select human unless someone has a tonne of money) in space is cool.

Curling - now your talking sports. I bet all the chicks are falling over Kevin Martin after his gold medal though Kevin Koe sure attracted fans after those world championships!

This is an interesting comment. My mother worked with mentally challenged kids for many years before retiring from the school division. Recently she was visiting while some friends had come over with their son. Afterwards, she asked if we knew if he had been diagnosed as autistic. We (my wife and I) said that our friends wouldn't believe that and some "holistic" doctors had told them that he was just sensitive to some preservatives and that was what was causing his issues... now, of course, he has gone into pre-school and his teachers are skeptical about this sensitivity. Our friends still refuse to believe there is anything else wrong. So, I agree, people having spent time working with these kids can easily pick out others with the same problems (my wife and I also figured he was too... Personally, I think it is very obvious and our friends are desperately avoiding the issue).

In undergraduate physics, the student association had a file cabinet containing all exams from approximately the last 10 years in ALL classes required for a degree. In fact, to make money we took the last few years of exams for 1st year courses, solved the problems and copied and bound them and sold the booklets to people taking the course. Before the final we would hire a grad student or two to essential teach problems out of the book. When we started, we made nothing more than a few hundred dollars. By the end of my undergrad there, we were pulling in about $5k a semester because students realised that this prior knowledge was a key to passing the classes.

If their primary focus was education, you'd never attract good researchers. The university would make less money (since they get a piece of all the incoming grant money) and tuition would go up - way up. Without the good researchers, there would be a dramatic decrease in graduate students, which would mean the need for more instructors to teach labs - i.e. more money and even higher tuition.

Most universities I've been at recently, the large first year courses are getting more 'focus' and are often taught by dedicated instructors who don't do research or their research revolves around education (such as physics education which is actually a very large field).

Personally, I think back to the good old days when universities were for academics and research not just accepting 1000's of students so they can get a degree. I think it waters down the whole point of a degree and takes many hours of time which could be used for productive work. Yes, I admit I am an academic working as a researcher at a university and I'm proud of it. It took me many years to get where I am and yet I get paid a pittance in comparison with some of my friends who have either no degree (work in a trade as journeymen or masters) or have a bachelor's degree.

In reality, I expected to not make as much money but knowledge was its own reward... still, it would be nice to help pay some bills.

Interesting thought experiment.

I think that the answer is reasonably simple though based on the understanding of a standard dipole magnet. If you "look" at a dipole magnet, you see the north (south) pole is populated by more positive (negative) charge. If you cut that magnet in half, you still have the same configuration.

Therefore, I believe what you would get is a migration of electrons toward the north pole of the dipole magnet you touch to the wire. You get electrons moving since they are more "free" than protons in matter. as the electrons propagate, even just a little, you get tiny bar magnets forming along the wire. The new magnet would completely form when the dipole field was reached at the far end. Depending on the resistance of the material, etc it would be a time related to the ability of the electrons to move in the material.

The interesting part would be the fact that there maybe (I don't know the answer as I am not a specialist in material science nor EM physics) tiny magnetic perturbation fields that propagate along the wire do to the small "shift" in the electrons (electron motion is a current - current produces a magnetic field).

So based on this physics, I would say no, this is not a "current of magnetism" as you put it. Monopoles are not moving, electrons are.

This article is theoretical in nature however. They have obviously made some assumptions in their model (no model is ever 100% correct - or even close). So while they say that it is 2 orders of magnitude too small, is this because of their assumptions? What could be the error? We/They should look for actual evidence (you know, an experiment or observations in the real world) to back this claim up.

(I guess that is the experimentalist in me... I never do trust models that much, especially when they don't predict the actual observations under the same conditions)