[extropy-chat] Moon news

[David Lubkin]

Robert wrote:

 >If a Mars program would cost $100B consider what that could do if invested
 >in nanotech development...

then I responded:

 > 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.

to which Samantha posed:

>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?

As Greg might say in lawyer mode, Res ipsa loquitur: The thing speaks for 
itself. If space weren't politically marketable, it wouldn't be on Bush's 
plate right now.  He's clearly in re-election mode, looking at some of his 
recent actions.  Karl Rove must have polled this, and found it winning.

Space remains popular with the American people. The consequences of going 
to space are self-evident to everyone (or at least they think they are). 
Everyone has seen Star Trek or Star Wars, or looked up at the night sky. 
They may think the money is better spent on curing cancer or feeding the 
homeless, but they are not afraid of space.

On the other hand, most Americans have no clue what nanotech is or what its 
consequences are. Many of the few who have a sense of nano are afraid of 
bogeymen -- grey goo, nano making the rich richer, etc.

Meanwhile, there's an established power framework of subcommittees, NASA 
centers, aerospace contractors, congresscritters with space contractors in 
their districts, etc., built up over half a century in support of continued 
space projects.

Gee, which states have the biggest NASA centers and aerospace 
contractors?  California, Florida, and Texas.  How many electoral votes...?

And the pivotal role that US satellite capabilities had in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, which is vulnerable.

And the competitive economic and military pressure from the space programs 
of China, Japan, India, Israel, etc.

In any case -- here we are. Bush has chosen to push space. Done deal. What 
we can do is try to sway the decisions made within a space policy. Push 
stuff we think is worthwhile -- asteroid retrieval, work on 
closed-environmental systems, building lasting infrastructure instead of 
one-shots, etc. Which *could* include a hefty sum for research that we 
think of as nanotech, if it is framed in terms of its direct applicability 
to the mission. In the way that folks like Rod Hyde at Livermore worked on 
high-powered lasers and tracking for SDI, well aware that the work was also 
applicable to laser-launching.


-- David Lubkin.