At first glance, it seems like every young Boy Scout’s dream come true: a merit badge for video games. The Boy Scouts of America have finally recognized the vital importance of the pastime that occupies so much of modern children's attention with the creation of a "video games" belt loop and pin, writes Engadget. But before anyone goes scurrying off to embark on a marathon gaming session, here's the rub. The awards aren't earned by beating a high score or rescuing the princess. Instead Boy Scouts have to fulfill several dull requirements in order to get the belt loop, including: Explain why it is important to have a rating system for video games. Check your video games to be sure they are right for your age. With an adult, create a schedule for you to do things that includes your chores, homework, and video gaming. Do your best to follow this schedule. Learn to play a new video game that is approved by your parent, guardian, or teacher. To get the pin, the scout also needs to create a plan with his ...

With the Gulf of Mexico oil spill spreading and the operations to contain it taking too much time, Rear Adm. Mary Landry says the Coast Guard is considering another option to keep the spill from reaching nearby American shorelines: setting the oil on fire.

Yes, you read that right. The idea of a controlled burn surfaced as a possible way to remove thick pockets of crude rife with baseball-sized tar balls from within the massive slick. That tarry crude poses the biggest threat to sensitive coastal areas. Landry said burning could begin as early as today [Houston Chronicle]. BP, the company that leased the now-sunken oil rig, is trying to slow the leak via the work of submersible robots, but so far they’ve had no success. And so 42,000 gallons of oil continue to leak into the gulf every day. To keep the spill from becoming one of the worst in American history, the Coast Guard is considering all its options.

During the operation, the Coast Guard would use its boats and booms to get the oil into a U-shape, then ignite it. Response teams attempted this in Newfoundland in 1993, and found that they could get more than half of the oil collected—but not without the trade-off of separate environmental damage. The heat generated by the burning oil—a temperature of 1,800°F (982°C) was measured at the top of the boom at the Newfoundland burn—will cause the smoke to rise several hundred to several thousand feet and at the same time be carried away by the prevailing winds [National Geographic]. The plume created should be similar to that of a large forest fire.

The oil slick started about 50 miles off the Gulf Coast when the oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and then sank. Since then oil has spread outward in a hurry, and is now within 20 miles of the coast. While a controlled burn would give off plenty of nasty smoke, Landry says, the impact on Louisiana’s coastline, which contains some 40% of the nation’s wetlands and spawning grounds for countless fish and birds, had to be considered [BBC News]. Out at sea, the fumes from the fire could prove toxic to birds and other wildlife, but they have a better chance to escape that than if they find themselves stuck in the path of the water-borne oil.

Meanwhile, BP will keep pressing its options to slow the spread. The underwater robots are trying to reach valves that control pressure in the well, and should they ultimately fail in that operation, the oil company is preparing to drill a secondary well to relieve some of the pressure. But that could take two to three months.

Related Content:
80beats: Sunken Oil Rig Now Leaking Crude; Robots Head to the Rescue
80beats: Ships Race To Contain the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
80beats: Obama Proposes Oil & Gas Drilling in Vast Swaths of U.S. Waters
80beats: 21 Years After Spill, Exxon Valdez Oil Is *Still* Stuck in Alaska’s Beaches
80beats: 20 Years After Valdez Spill, Eagles Are Healthy; 7 Other Species Still Hurting
80beats: “Nanosponge” Could Soak Up Oil Spills

Image: NASA—the slick approaching Louisiana

I am on record as saying that I think that the Constellation rocket program should be axed, and replaced with a system that is more cost-effective and less likely to run overbudget as Constellation has. President Obama’s speech recently made it clear that Constellation’s days are numbered, and that he is urging NASA to look into a better heavy-lift vehicle.

Not everyone agrees, of course. Jeff Hanley — the manager of the Constellation Program — has apparently sent out an email that is an attempt to save at least part of the current system. I have not seen this email, but it’s alleged to try to use Obama’s idea of continuing with the Orion space capsule concept to save even more of Constellation.

Obama wants NASA to keep developing the Orion capsule as a lifeboat for the space station (and, I assume, a crew capsule for future deep space missions). Of course, to test such a capsule it has to be lofted to orbit. How do you do that? This is where Hanley’s email comes in: the best way to get Orion into space is aboard the Ares 1 rocket, the first such vehicle to be built under Constellation.

As schemes go, that’s pretty clever. Hanley is leveraging Ares — which will be canceled under Obama’s plan — using Orion. In other words, the Ares 1 rockets will have to continue to be developed and built if we are to get Orion up and running. That way, even if Constellation is canceled, at least part of it will live on.

It may be clever, but is it wise? I’m not sure. The Ares 1 has been tested once, and a lot of folks outside of NASA took a very dim view of it… Buzz Aldrin essentially called it a fraud, saying it was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show by NASA to make it look like progress was being made, when in reality it was a failure. That doesn’t make me hopeful that Ares 1 is what we want to throw our support behind.

I’ve been pretty clear on this: Constellation is basically a good idea, but is off to such a rocky start that it may be best to stop throwing money at it. NASA needs to do these things, in this order:

1) Figure out what its Next Giant Leap is — asteroid rendezvous, Moon base, mission to Mars;

2) Figure out just what is needed to not only accomplish this goal, but to sustain it with an eye toward the next big goal;

3) Start cutting metal.

The problem, as usual, is in Step 2. Sure, that first step (ironically) is sometimes fuzzy and vague, but Obama laid out at least a place to start in his speech last month (even if I disagree strongly with him about the Moon). But politics, public relations, whatever — NASA always stumbles (with plenty of help from Congress) at that dreaded Step 2, drawing up plans that seem to over-reach and not be realistic in terms of budget, goals, and timelines. That’s why we have the Shuttle, the space station, and no future plans.

Before I get the usual anti-Obama comments, remember that it was the Bush Administration that called for the retiring of the Shuttle before we had a working follow-up vehicle. So no matter what we have to rely on other countries and private industry until we get that next-gen rocket. But what happens next is perhaps the most critical thing NASA has ever done since the Apollo program was first announced. Political maneuvering and white-elephant saving are the last thing NASA needs.

What NASA needs is a clear goal, a clear vision, and a clear way to make those happen.