[extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered

[Brent Neal]

 (3/16/04 14:14) Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>
>However, AI/nanotechnology will completely dominate posthuman future.

Assuming the technologies play out the way the visionaries expect them to. I'm not willing to wager on that.  Mad Prophet Murphy, etc. etc. 

>Suited/canned monkeys are an expiring model, though they haven't even
>properly started yet.

Yes. Until we -need- a human presence in the outsystem, or we decide to terraform Mars, there is absolutely no reason for human presence in space. We continue to have a manned space program primarily due to penis-measurement issues.

>
>Having this said, Smalley has said a few curious things which make me suspect
>he's sketchy on understanding on machine-phase self-rep systems.

I don't think Smalley is sketchy so much as he is trying to play a preventative political game that will preserve his funding even if the Luddites manage to paint nanotech with the Brush of Evil. :)  The difference makes no difference though. He's made some, IMO, indefensible public statements. Yes, I realize that this is a terribly cynical thing to think, but too many years of watching the big budget science game be played has left me with a healthy dose of cynicism.


>
>You misunderstood me completely. We clearly have a lot of loose cash, judging
>by our frivolous activities. We could clearly fare better to have invested
>the Iraq campaign funds into the lunar bootstrap (though I'd rather see that
>used for polymer electronics, photovoltaics and direct alcohol/fuel reformer
>fuel cells, and, yes, specific areas in nanotechnology).

Agreed. Not to mention other technologies which are starting up the commercialization curve, such as TDP.


>Of course. But there are no rocks in LEO, or GEO. Hauling hardware into LEO
>or Moon surface doesn't have much differing costs (machines don't mind long
>transfer times, people do, people don't like high deccelerations, machines
>don't mind impact shocks, if properly designed).

Rocks aren't the most valuable thing in space. At our current technology levels and planetary needs, the uninterrupted solar flux is -vastly- more valuable. 

> 
>> Hmm. I'd read that most of the useful chemicals on the Moon were 
>> bound up in the rocks, and not in a terribly useful state. The 
>
>That's manifestly untrue. 

I wish I could find the article where I read this. But, the Moon has been baking for a long damn time. Anything volatile that -wasn't- bound up in rocks has long since boiled off.

>
>Then he's smoking crack. We don't have autonomous automation, and 2 sec lag
>is barely sufficient for hand/eye coordination. Nevermind transfer times and
>costs to Mars.

Read the Mars Direct book before passing judgement. Zubrin is a pretty clever engineer.

> 
>> Absolutely. The next logical place to put humans is Mars, to cut 
>> down the communications delay  to industrialization efforts in the 
>> asteroid belt. Plus, we actually have a decent chance of terraforming Mars. Added bonus.
>
>You're describing a completely irrational programme. Why are you so bent on
>pulling another Apollo with Mars? 

There is a difference, to which you seem to be completely oblivious,  between a "catch it and piss on it" Apollo program and a sensible bootstrap. From the research I've read, the moon seems a more irrational target than Mars due to its relative paucity of free resources. Once we're in orbit, which -must- be the first step no matter how you choose to play the game, the getting to Mars is not that much more expensive energy-wise than the Moon.

You're choosing to paint that with a tainted brush for reasons that I'm not sure of, be they simply prejudicial or more complicated.


> 
>> You know, we're not doing a bad job for remote operations 
>> on Mars. Especially not for our 3rd very tentative try. 
>
>It only looks good if you compare it to other human artifacts.

And it will continue to get better. That's the nature of technology. Considering that the technology that gets launched is -by design- 5-10 years out of date anyway, I'm cautiously optimistic about things such as Zubrin's proposed automated fuel reformer for the Martian surface.




>
>> 
>> The problem that I'm seeing with most of your arguments is 
>> that you are looking 20-50 years out, and assuming the next 
>> 20 years goes your way. I've had too many encounters with the 
>
>I'm making no specific predictions. 

Yes, you were.  You were doing so in your assumptions. 

>
>So far, our space activities
>have not been ROI-oriented.

Exactly my point. This needs to change. Immediately, if not sooner. 

Which has been my point all along. Investing -now-, not later, with an eye towards using the returns from the investment to fuel further investment is the only strategy that I see working in the long term. Undoubtedly there will be 'waste' that occurs from unforeseen factors. We could spend trillions of dollars tossing things into orbit with chemical rockets, only to discover the proper 'unobtainium' (whether it be nanotube ropes or something more exotic) that will allow us to build a space elevator.  There are literally thousands of other things that could happen along that same vein.  Even if they -all- come to pass, I don't think the investment will be wasted: its too easy to sink into a pit of decision paralysis and terminal specification creep. 


B


-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein