[extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered

[Brent Neal]

 (3/15/04 20:59) Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:12:14PM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:
>
>It is useless trying to make predictions based on things you cannot know.
>I'm not including any magical new physics. No tabletop wormholes allowed,
>sorry. If such technology is feasible, you can assume postbiology will find
>it. Both AI and nanotechnology are causally corellated: we will soon have AI
>once we have molecular circuitry, and vice versa (the AI will invent anything
>which is within reach of designspace).

I agree it is useless making such predictions, which is why I both strenuously object to your using self-replicating nanotech and in this message, the link between AI and nanotech as givens in the debate about colonization of the solar system.



> 
>> Read the Smalley-Drexler debate.  As I said before, I'd rather do it
>
>I do not care much about lowest common denominator level of discussion on
>nanotechnology. It makes my brain bleed.

I'm not quite sure how you meant that but either way, I find it amusing. Are you seriously suggesting that Smalley and Drexler are somehow ill-informed about the minutiae of the nanotech debate?


>> After spending 6 years in nanotechnology research, the most important 
>> things I learned were that (a) the nanotech advocates are overly 
>> optimistic and (b) there is a gaping chasm between what is thought 
>
>The Merkle/Drexler advocates? Absolutely. However, this doesn't have anything
>to do with idea of machine-phase/autoassembly molecular self-replication. 
>

Nanotech represents a locus of related, but not identical, fields.  The construction of molecular assemblers is but one aspect of the field. However, your previous statements indicated that you believe that molecular assemblers are necessary for the colonization of the solar system in earnest. I disagree with that, for the reasons I've stated previously.


>> to be possible and our current engineering prowess. Of course, I'm 
>
>Of course. What has the current state of the art to do with anything? 

The current state of the art has everything to do with my point!  We have the capability to industrialize space right now.  We should invest early, instead of waiting for our "state of the art" to give us some magical wonder-tech.



>
>noNoNONONO! You have to bring up anything you process up from LEO, and the
>step to leap to microgravity vs. a more civil 1/6th is not to be
>underestimated. 

Yeah, well duh. But you have to start somewhere, which means shipping the means to exploit the other rocks up from down here. Obviously, you only want to boost the minimum required to do so. But waving your hands at that simple truth won't make it go away.

>I'm totally with you if we had a few 100 m rock up there already. But, no
>suck luck. The closest one is Luna. And it has volatiles, to boot.
>

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 white papers published by Zubrin, among others, seem to indicate that Earth->LEO/GEO->Mars is a much more cost effective path.


>
>This alone completely kills people as bootstrap agents, as long as you have
>resources within easy teleoperation radius, or automation at least as good as
>social insects.

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.


>
>We're so lucky to have the Moon.
>
>> your bootstrap starts. Making visionary statements about how 
>> much easier it will be to do this once we have this or that 
>> McGuffin  is fun, but it butters no parsnips.
>> 
>> The economics of a moon base are pretty marginal, from what I 
>> understand. Mars seems to be a much better choice, but until 
>> we do a better job industrializing Earth's orbit, even a moon 
>> base will remain out of reach.
>
>Have to completely disagree with you on that one. Mars is out of reach, so
>ist LEO/GEO/Lagrange, Luna is just within easy reach with teleoperation.


You know, we're not doing a bad job for remote operations on Mars. Especially not for our 3rd very tentative try. 

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 mad prophet Murphy to expect that. Talk to me about what we can do -now-. Don't hand-wave, and don't bullshit. One of my fondest wishes is for us to start looking at space as more than just a convenient setting for novels and as a money-sink for politicians. We've invested a fsckload of money and we should be considering a return on that investment.  Undoubtedly we've seen some of that - read Heinlein's testimony to Congress in the 80's for examples. But what have we gotten since then? We should expect more.

B


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

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