XNA and other things genetic

[Alatar]

This thread hits me at an interesting time actually. I'm in the middle of listening to the audio book of Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars" and there's some pretty serious science in there (although I'm not qualified to judge how much of it is correct). Has anyone read them and what's the received wisdom about the viability of the methods they use to make the planet liveable?

[Túrin Turambar]

Curiosity Comes Cheap - Why the latest Mars rover (and all planetary exploration) is a steal
Posted By Casey Dreier

No, NASA spread the cost of this mission out over eight years. The money spent went into salaries of highly-skilled engineers, programmers, managers, and independent contractors in over twenty states across the country. Things like the cost of rocket to launch it to Mars are included in that total, too, which accounts for nearly a fifth of the amount.

If you you just divide the total cost by the number of years NASA has saved for it, you come out with about $312 million per year. This works about to approximately 1.8% of NASA’s yearly budget and approximately diddly-squat of the total federal budget. That’s about $1 per year for every American, aka, nothing. Think of it this way: say you lose one dime every month this year. Whoops! You’ve lost more money than you spent on Curiosity.

Fair enough. I'm not a U.S. taxpayer, but I'd still spend a dollar for Curiosity.

[yovargas]

Especially given how little the effort costs compared to what we spend giving lots of money to people who already have plenty, or blowing things up for no discernible reason, or building weapons that will never be used, or subsidizing industries that are harming the planet.

While not taking sides one way or the other, the argument that we spend lots of money on some silly things isn't really that great an argument against "spending money on X is silly".

[Frelga]

True, which is why I would have preferred an article that doesn't make the argument "we spend money on worse" in addition to other, IMO better, arguments. However, it makes better sense when used in the context of "which government program shall we cut."

Curiosity also has the intangible benefit of being an awesome story. The kind that gets the schoolkids to dream and wonder, and wish to be engineers, scientists, and astronauts. I'd like to hope that in turn it may spark them to be creative in whatever they do end up doing.

Also, rover technology has SOME earth-side applications, surely?

[Primula Baggins]

Alatar, I've read the Mars trilogy and I'm reading his 2312 now. Although Robinson has a strong, definite political viewpoint, I think his science is based as soundly as any hard SF writer's can be. What he extrapolates from is real, as far as I can tell; the extrapolations may or may not be reasonable, depending on just what kind of engineering will be feasible at the time he writes about. It isn't unreasonable if you stipulate the ability to obtain enormous energy at little or no cost (cheap solar with near-perfect efficiency, etc.) and add in self-replicating factories.

The landscape of Mars, which I think amounts to a character in itself within the trilogy, is accurate (though it sounds insane) and was taken straight from NASA topographic maps. He also stayed in Antarctica in 1995 (as part of an NSF program for artists and writers) while he was finishing Blue Mars.

[Primula Baggins]

Especially given how little the effort costs compared to what we spend giving lots of money to people who already have plenty, or blowing things up for no discernible reason, or building weapons that will never be used, or subsidizing industries that are harming the planet.

While not taking sides one way or the other, the argument that we spend lots of money on some silly things isn't really that great an argument against "spending money on X is silly".

My argument is that spending money on scientific research and learning about the universe is not silly. I'm not trying to prove it by pointing out that we waste a ton of money on other things; I'm just saying that if we need to save money, there are plenty of better places to save a whole lot more.

[vison]

Well, back in the day, they thought that type of science was so bloody useless they forced Galileo to recant and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Some things only attain value in hindsight.

Drilling into the ice layer of Europa is arguably an extension of the work begun by the likes of the men you listed. They plucked the low-hanging fruit and we have feasted mightily. Getting more off that tree is not going to be easy.

Not useless: heretical. They were quite willing to accept science as long as it didn't contradict scripture.

I am with Prim. But one must be realistic, these projects are only possible with wealth and determination, both of which are failing commodities.