Alyssa Carson (born March 10, 2001) is an American space enthusiast who has attended numerous space camps and has visited every NASA visitor center.[1] She has been profiled by a variety of news outlets, public interest publications, and interview shows as an unofficial astronaut-in-training.

[...]

While frequently described by the media as an "astronaut in training",[20][10] Carson is not affiliated with any national space program.[21][22] NASA has publicly stated that the organization "has no official ties to Alyssa Carson",[22] and separately that "although Ms. Carson uses ‘NASA' in her website name and Twitter and Instagram handles, we’re not affiliated at all."[23] In 2019 Newsweek corrected a headline that had implied that Carson's training was affiliated with NASA.[9] Snopes.com also has dedicated a page to clarify such claims, which says: "Carson is not in training with—or being prepped by—NASA to become an astronaut, or to take part in the first human mission to Mars."[24]

I need one of these for myself. I know hella rocks and will probably be the lead of the smithsonian or something if I become a geologist someday.

edit: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alyssa-carson-87b874152 Can someone with a Linkedin account confirm that she doesn't actually have any work experience whatsoever? I think that part might be hidden for me but I only see bullshit awards, her own org about wanting to be an astronaut when she grows up, volunteering one day per year at space camp, and inspirational articles from 2018 about how she wants to be an astronaut when she wants to grow up. There's no "internship at [legitimate company]" which is a required class for any BS degree at my university.

  • quarrk [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have a degree in astrophysics, so here’s my perspective.

    Whether, and how much, a field is speculative has little scientific or practical bearing on whether it is worth studying. I’ll throw out the obvious reason first: you don’t know what you don’t know. Much of science lies in pushing boundaries even when there is no specific discovery in mind.

    Astronomy as a whole has always been challenged for relevance to “real” studies here on Earth. Many people think that astronomy is a waste of money.

    Was it pointless to send multiple spacecraft, including COBE, WMAP, and Planck, just to figure out how uniform is the cosmic microwave background radiation? Or to devote similar efforts to researching the flatness of the Universe? To image black holes and measure gravitational waves? These things are about as speculative as astrobiology, but they sound more “serious.”

    I believe all of these things are important to study because the laws of physics are, as far as we can tell, the same everywhere in the universe. Therefore space is simply another laboratory in which we study the Earth; an invaluable one, actually, because there is far more exotic physics happening around galactic nuclei (for example) than we can ever come close to simulating in a laboratory on Earth.

    Astrobiology is not merely looking at spectra. The spectra are only an indirect measurement. The difficulty lies in understanding the non-biological processes which could produce a signature that otherwise appears biological in origin. Until you’re holding a little green alien, you can’t really prove that a measurement is definitely life, but with solid science you can be pretty damn sure that there is no other explanation.