[extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard

[Dan Clemmensen]

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Projects to kill:
>>    Advanced weapons procurement (some R&D is okay: procurement is a
>>    total waste.)
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed. Normal weapons (and time) have shown that we can even get someone
>like Saddam.  Osama is harder but one can presume his days are numbered.
>  
>
I don't think a new class of aircraft carrier, nuclear submarine, tank, 
or fighter plane
is going to help against Ossama Bin Laden.  These systems require 10 or 
more years
to develop.

>  
>
>>    Plasma and inertial fusion
>>    
>>
>
>Here I have questions.  There is a significant "research" part to these
>efforts.  I'm not sure that the "R" aspect will not lead to something
>that is not useful.
>  
>
Payback in 15 year or less? No. Put the money into computer and 
nanotech. Then use nanotech to do fusion correctly. (And yes, nanotech 
is very, very relevant to fusion.)

>  
>
>>    manned spaceflight
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed.  Unless this is directed to a long term distribution of
>humanity around the solar system so it forms a distributed intelligence
>(something I discussed at Extro III) it may be relatively useless.
>  
>
SI and nanotech will yield this as a result before a "traditional 
program could bear fruit.

>>    large-scale alternative energy.
>>    
>>
>
>This part I am not clear about.  Alternative energy such
>as wind power seems to be working.  Biomass conversion
>would also seem to be functional.  I would be interested
>in what specific aspects of alternative energy sources
>you find unworkable.
>
>  
>
Oil shale, oil sands, tidal, large-scale solar, beamed power, new 
nuclear designs. None of these has a 15-year payback. replicating or 
refining an existing design may or may not.