RE: SETI bioastro: SETI call to arms, international debate

[Sean McCutcheon]

Michael,   I strongly suspect were not going to get far enough, fast enough, depending on government funding.  We need to focus on making space colonization enormously profitable for private industry and convincing private industry that the profit potential is worth the initial investment.  That's how it will really take off, if you'll pardon the pun.   It seems to me that the most important things to focus on to move in this direction are (1) reducing the cost of lifting payloads into orbit, however we can do that, and (2) developing the technologies necessary for moving and mining asteroids.  (The latter also has the side benefit of offering protection from collisions.)   In the meantime, just about everything else space-related is a worthwhile undertaking because it involves solving similar problems and hence making some incremental technological progress.  Certain missions also have the potential to accelerate the process by increasing public interest if they produce good results (especially if we were to find life on Europa, for instance).  Such missions are, of course, also valuable for their own sake--but we should keep our vision fixed on the long-term goal so as to keep our priorities straight.  No amount of pure science is more important than human survival, which for several reasons greatly depends on us not having all our eggs in one ecological basket for too much longer.   -Sean McCutcheon   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Michael Turner Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 4:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SETI bioastro: SETI call to arms, international debate Ron Sirull's either-or logic -- i.e., that people shouldn't waste money on Martian microbe-hunting when we could find intelligent life with SETI gear on the Lunar farside -- is a bit regrettable.  As he says   ".... sustainability of funding has continually been cited by the President's own Commission as the Moon, Mars, etc. plan's greatest threat."   but the problem is that sustainability of funding is mainly threatened by the American public's gross overestimate of how much of the federal budget goes into the NASA.  People think it's on the order of 15-20% of discretionary spending, when it's actually far less than that.   Actually, the problem is a little subtler than this.  Many years ago, in the early years of microcomputers, a programmer friend of mine and his MD colleague put together a computer system for hospitals.  It was ridiculously cheap compared to systems of comparable functionality.  But they hardly sold any.  Why not?  Because as a purchase, the price was too low.  It wasn't a big-ticket item, like a CAT scanner, or an IBM 370 mainframe for billing.  Awareness of the value of the system didn't reach up to the level where hospital equipment procurement people made decisions about anything strategic.   In a funny way, the American space program, as wasteful as it is, is still just too cheap.  Wanna see how this works?  No?  Somewhat like the making of sausage, I agree.  But let's follow the fat and the gristle, the whole butchering and rendering process ....   Let's say you're president.  And you want to get your space thang on.  An advisor tells you that the American public is lukewarm about it.  Why?  Some voters are just die-hard stick-in-the-muds.  But most voters are worried about the added expense.    "OK", you say (remember, you're president), "I'll just go up there with a pie-chart showing how little it will cost.  Just this thin little sliver of the pie...   "No no no!" cry your close advisors. "If you do a whole speech, or even a major part of a speech, about such a tiny sliver of the budget, it will make you look like you're micromanaging, not paying attention to the bigger picture, the more important concerns - like Social Security going bust.  You'll be President Moonbeam.  It's political suicide."   "So what should I do?" you ask.   "Just offer to give NASA a cost-of-living increase and call it a major boost in funding for a grand mission.  If Congress shoots it down, *then* you can talk about how the *increase* was just a thin sliver of the overall pie, and how petty and partisan your opponents are, how tired, how blinkered, how lacking in vision."   "Where's that going to get us in space?"   "Nowhere very fast, but over time ..."   "Look - give me a strategy that will really get the ball rolling, will you?" you insist, "I want to see something happen before I'm wearing diapers again!"   "OK," says your space advisor, seizing the moment, "Well, if you'll remember my presentation last fall?  You know, the one we got a whole 3 minutes into before being interrupted--"   "Mr. President!" says an aide, bursting into the Oval Office holding a cordless phone.  "It's Bremer!  He's saying Ahmad Chalabi has been spying for the Iranians all this time!  You gotta take this call ..."   You slump forward in defeat.  You dismiss your space advisor.  You take the call.   -michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]             ----- Original Message ----- From: LARRY KLAES To: europa Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:51 AM Subject: Fw: SETI bioastro: SETI call to arms, international debate   ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 12:46 PM Subject: SETI bioastro: SETI call to arms, international debate Very interesting proposal in SETI League editorial: "Fellow SETI enthusiasts: We are missing the boat on President Bush's new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" program! This editorial is nothing less than a call to arms, metaphorically speaking. Instead of using the Moon as just a "stepping stone to Mars", as the US President's proposal has outlined, a lunar farside SETI facility (radio astronomy dishes linked like the Allen-array network, and an optical cluster there as well for the Laser SETI Searchers) offers as its reward the possible detection of a Galactic Internet, not merely the frozen/fossilized microbes likely to be found on Mars." Moon Yes, Mars No! by Ron Sirull http://www.setileague.org/editor/moonyes.htm See also Astronomers plan telescope on Moon New Scientist interview Claudio Maccone http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991735 and EuroSETI04 Science and Technology Workshop http://www.setileague.org/photos/euro2004.htm Comments? Clear skies from NW Italy! ;-) Bruno Moretti Cicognola Astronomical Observatory & IK2WQA Ham Radio Station 45°43'28"N 8°36'35"E QTH Locator: JN45HR http://www.iaragroup.org/ http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/ap/team_display.php?teamid=8 http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_7422.html