Update: TrekMovie.com has an interview with Carolyn online, with comments from some Trek folks like Andre Bormanis and JJ Abrams.

How cool is this: Carolyn Porco has been brought in as a science advisor for the new Trek movie! She’ll be consulting on the visuals of the solar system in the movie to make sure they’re accurate.

There’s a good reason they’re using her: she’s the imaging team leader for the Cassini Saturn probe, so she knows her stuff. Regular readers know she’s a great scientist and (gloat gloat) a friend of mine. But of course, I’m not jealous at all.

Trek fanboy that I am, I now have even more reason to see this movie: if they have effects showing the Enterprise going past Saturn, I may pass out from hyperventilation.

Update: Check the comments below for a surprise.

I write for a living now. It’s my job.

That’s a weird thing to write (and yet, in some fun meta-way, I got paid a wee bit for writing it). I used to be a research astronomer, a programmer, an educator. Now I write. I’m actually an author, I guess; my second book is in production and will be out in October.

But at the moment this blog and some other venues (and some stuff coming up I’ll share soon enough) are, basically, my job. They’re my source of income. Leaving a full-time salaried position was a tough decision, and lots of my friends and readers ask me if it was the right thing to do and all that. Writing full time is really different than I imagined it would be, and it’s harder. A year ago, if I didn’t feel like writing, well, I wouldn’t. I don’t have that luxury now. I simply make sure I always feel like writing. Happily, it’s fun, so it hasn’t been an issue yet!

John Scalzi is a science fiction writer, and I’ll be up front and say I haven’t read his works yet (I haven’t read any science fiction in ages, a problem I plan on fixing)– but he writes a blog, and Wil Wheaton talks about him all the time, so I started reading it. I like it!

He posted a longish entry about what it’s like to write full time and aimed it as advice to the hopeless romantics who think writing is all wine and roses. And I have to say, he nailed it. He’s precisely correct. I don’t make as much as he does, but I can mentally replace his salary with mine, and the facts still line up. I too married a business-savvy person, for a long time I didn’t quit my day job (I’ve had this website since 1998, and my first book came out in 2002, so I’ve had jobs while doing most of my writing), we try to pay off the credit cards every month. I am prepared to be broke, but that hasn’t happened yet, and the trajectory I am following appears to preclude that (though we’ll see what the economy does in the next few months… not to mention my book sales).

It’s easy to romanticize this job, and some of it really is pretty cool. I don’t have to put on pants! I mean, c’mon. That rawks.

But money is an issue, time is an issue, quality is an issue. Expansion is a major issue. I need to do more things, better things… and those I plan to do. I have ideas I’m working on, and I’ll implement some of them very soon. You’ll see (wink). But in the meantime, I hope everyone will keep reading (tell a friend!). And if you want to do this full time, well, be prepared. Read what Scalzi wrote, and take it to heart. He knows of which he speaks.

A very interesting email came to me the other day. It’s from the American Astronomical Society, the largest professional society of astronomers in the US. Sometimes, the AAS will make a position statement of some sort, and in general they are not of great interest to the public. But this one made me laugh, though perhaps ruefully.

Why? Well first, in January I attended a meeting of the AAS, and NASA top banana Mike Griffin came to speak… and let’s just say it didn’t go so well. No, let’s not just say that: read what I wrote after listening to him. Bottom line: he was ticked that some astronomers circumvented NASA’s funding process by going straight to Congress to get earmarks for some missions. That messes up the funding for other projects, putting them in jeopardy.

My take after the speech when talking with other astronomers is that this is true, and we need to band together. However, the flip side of this is that Griffin said it in a way that made him come off as kind of a jerk. He literally said that if astronomers "want to sit at the adult table" we’d better shape up. Cute, huh? Nothing inspires people more than being called childish. Let me be clear: I agree that we need to figure out how to be united on this, but I do wish Griffin had said it in a way that wouldn’t instantly unite astronomers against him.

Anyway, the statement just released by the AAS reflects the sense that we need to unify. Here is the statement in its entirety; emphasis is mine.

On Community-based Priority Setting in the Astronomical Sciences

Adopted 24 January 2008

The American Astronomical Society and each of its five divisions strongly endorse community-based priority setting as a fundamental component in the effective federal funding of research. Broad community input is required in making difficult decisions that will be respected by policy makers and stake-holders. The decadal surveys are the premier examples of how to set priorities with community input. Other National Academy studies, standing advisory committees, senior reviews, and town hall meetings are important components. Mid-decade adjustments should also be open to appropriate community input. Pleadings outside this process for specific Congressional language to benefit projects or alter priorities are counterproductive and harm science as a whole. The American Astronomical Society opposes all attempts to circumvent the established and successful community-based priority-setting processes currently in place.

Well, good. It’s nice to see this being written down. The problem is, if some team wants to make sure their project gets funded, the AAS really cannot stop them from contacting their Senator or Rep to try to get an earmark for it; the AAS is not a legal body in that sense and I doubt would kick anyone out for circumventing the statement. However, word would spread pretty quickly if someone did do that, and the gossip would fly. That would be… interesting.

I certainly hope it doesn’t happen. Like I said, I think we really do need to stick together and speak with one voice. We cannot put a single mission ahead of others without a unanimous agreement, because that would threaten many, many other projects. It’s all good, and it’s all important, and we all have a stake in every mission, even if we aren’t directly involved. I’d really prefer we don’t all hang separately.

Man, I love me some Ironic Sans. Scientist valentines! Brilliant!

He has inspired me to create my own:

Feel free to send it to a skeptic you love… especially if you’re trying to woo them.

This post is about a Presidential science debate, and we need your help! Please see below for how you can help make this happen.

There is no doubt — none — that science plays a major role in our lives today. There is also no doubt that science has been under vicious attack by politics recently as well, from Plan B to Fish and Wildlife to stem cells to evolution and beyond.

That is why a large group of scientists and science writers has been gathered to promote a Presidential debate on science. This idea has been gathering steam, and is now a major force. The National Academy of Sciences just signed on, for example, and the list of supporters is awesome to behold.

This force was started by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum from the science blog The Intersection, and they have now announced that the Presidential candidates have been officially invited to participate in a science debate!

You read that right: this is for realz. We want the candidates to stand on stage and talk about their stance on various topics in science, and discuss the policies they have about scientific issues. We already know how many of them feel on various issues, but this would be a chance for them to debate, air out their policies, and see who stands where.

Here is the actual invitation sent to Clinton, Obama, Huckabee, and McCain.

The invitation is clear that this is not a science quiz, it is a debate on policy:

The debate may include such policy issues as: American economic competitiveness and support for scientific research; policy approaches to climate change; clean energy; the healthcare crisis; science education and technology in schools; scientific integrity; GM agriculture; transportation infrastructure; immigration; the genome; data privacy; intellectual property; pandemic diseases; the health of the oceans; water resources; stem cells; conservation and species loss; population; the space program, and others.

This is a policy debate. It is not intended to be a science quiz. Nor are we interested in state-level battles such as the evolution versus creationism/ID debate. Our goal is to find out how aware candidates are of America’s major science and technology problems and opportunities, and how they propose to offer the kind of visionary leadership and policy solutions that will tackle those challenges and ensure America’s place as the most scientifically and technologically advanced nation on earth. This is your opportunity to demonstrate that you are such a leader.

Cooooool. The debate is scheduled for April 18 at The Franklin Institute.

To make this a reality — let’s face it, we want to pressure the candidates into accepting — we need your help. Here’s what we need you to do:

1. Contact the campaigns, and tell them to attend ScienceDebate2008! A list of contact information for the campaigns can be found here.

2. Write letters to the editor of your local newspapers, raising further awareness about this initiative. Some handy letter writing tips can be found here.

3. Tell a friend about ScienceDebate2008 (handy link here). We need to spread the word as much as possible at this critical time. We’re at 13,000 supporters right now; we want to get to 15,000 supporters by the end of the week and 20,000 supporters by the end of the month.

I know that well over 20,000 people read my blog (and it’s probably closer to twice that). If half of you sign up, we’ll blow right past what we need, and if even a fraction write letters to the campaigns, this will become a reality. Just like that. I will be sending out my letters very soon (I’ll post the copy on the blog when I do).

We have a chance to be active in our own leadership here beyond just pulling a lever in November. Let’s make this happen.