[extropy-chat] Moon news

[Erik Starck]

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>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?  
>

1. China is going to space, so there is a slim chance that there willl 
be a red flag on the red planet and not an american:
http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/031231092850.yylbciw2.html
Chinas space ambitions is nothing else but a glove in the face on USA, 
an attempt to show who will be the super power of  the 21st century. The 
race is on.

2. "Going to Mars" is an extremely headlines-friendly goal compared to 
for example "build nano-assemblers" that no one's heard of.

>And if it is so politically marketable why have we been clingly to the ground so determinedly since Apollo?
>  
>

After the race to the moon was won  there was nothing left to prove and 
no real contender to the stars. Also there was the Challenger-accident 
that closed the curtain for NASA for a long time. It showed the risks of 
going to space. I doubt this "Mars statement" would have come if Spirit 
had failed as Beagle did.

But Europe is going to space and so is China, and don't forget the 
X-Prize. I wouldn't call that "clinging to the ground". It's almost 
starting to get crowdy up there.


--
Erik S.