[extropy-chat] Moon news

[Samantha Atkins]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:33:12 -0500
David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> 
> >I believe anyone who is an extropian who believes nanotechnology will 
> >develop reasonably rapidly (say within a century) would be foolish to 
> >support any Mars colonization or even Mars human visitation 
> >efforts.  There is no point to expending resources to put humans at the 
> >bottom of another gravity well.
> >         :
> >If a Mars program would cost $100B consider what that could do if invested 
> >in nanotech development...
> 
> That's not an option.  You aren't going to get $100B for nanotech 
> development.  Money will be spent on space projects.  This is political 
> reality.  The question is which space projects will be most useful of the 
> alternatives that are politically viable.
>

This is not obvious to me.  The possible breadth and depth of benefits from developing nanotech are much more obvious than the one in just going to Mars or getting the bare beginnings of a foothold on the Moon and/or Mars.  Why is space more politically marketable?  And if it is so politically marketable why have we been clingly to the ground so determinedly since Apollo?

> Of the three space choices we're discussing, I'd pick asteroid mining over 
> the Moon or Mars in a New York minute, except that I want it done 
> privately.  In the long run, I think we might be better off delaying 
> asteroid mining over doing it now as a government project.
>

Me too.  But I think it is better to do it at all than to not do it.
 
- s