3 ms·

Arg this article is infuriating. His conclusion is that only government taking the initiative will fix things: "political leaders and the public must care to s

Arg this article is infuriating. His conclusion is that only government taking the initiative will fix things: "political leaders and the public must care to solve a problem". He mentions SpaceX, but only in the context that its founder is one of the members of Founders Fund. Not a word about SpaceX building ships to go to Mars. Because that doesn't fit the narrative that only government can solve problems. A big problem now is energy. The solution is nuclear. Right now in the US government and the public's main role in nuclear is to ban the solution, which is what has created the problem. In France though the public and government didn't ban the solution to the problem and so 78.8% of their electricity comes from nuclear, without any disasters in over 30 years of operation, and a nationwide system of incredibly cheap high speed electric trains powered by this network.

drumdance 14y ago
I'm generally pro-nuclear, but a geoligist friend of mine who worked at Yucca mountain (where the government wants to sequester waste) said there was no way they could guarantee long term safety. I don't know what the exact risk is, but when you're working on ten-thousand-year timescales it's worth being a little cautious.
- adrianN 14y ago
  The solution to nuclear waste is burning it up in breeder reactors. Who don't have to store the stuff for aeons if we risk producing weapons grade material in between.
zerostar07 14y ago
- Government solved the problem of building rockets first. - The falling costs of green energy make it a mid-term solution too.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard
Apocryphon 14y ago
His conclusion is that only government taking the initiative will fix things: "political leaders and the public must care to solve a problem". But generally, only the governments of first world nation states can operate on that sort of level. They have the resources and are not accountable to voters the same way corporations are accountable to shareholders. Even the most impressive company couldn't have undertaken the Manhattan Project.
freyr 14y ago
The author isn't concluding that only the government will fix things. He's concluding that, in the past, the government has used its vast influence and resources to successfully identify and tackle huge technological challenges. And the government has not done that lately. Secondarily, he's pointing out that, a great deal of private capital is being funneled into trivial endeavors. The VCs themselves recognize this; many made their money by hitting the software start-up lottery, but now they want to "change the world" by funding something "big." But what do they find? Apps are still selling, apps are easy, apps are cheap. Science, on the other hand, is hard and risky. What to do?
lutorm 14y ago
SpaceX doesn't really build rockets to go to Mars... It might, one day, but it's a provider of rockets, not a private space exploration venture. Someone's going to need to buy that Mars launch off of them for that to happen.
- sixbrx 14y ago
  Not really, they just need to keep selling satellite launches around Earth to help pay for the eventual Mars shot. Sometimes companies do stuff because they or their founders just want to. Musk has made no secret that he plans to walk on Mars.
mcguire 14y ago
"He mentions SpaceX, but only in the context that its founder is one of the members of Founders Fund. Not a word about SpaceX building ships to go to Mars." I have a suspicion that SpaceX going to Mars does not scale. It has the same problem as NASA sending men to the moon: If SpaceX goes to Mars, it'll be because Elon wants to. When the trip to Mars is over, or if Elon gets bored or dies, the game is over. (Unless, of course, I'm wrong and there is some commodity available from there that would make the trip worthwhile.)

drumdance 14y ago

I'm generally pro-nuclear, but a geoligist friend of mine who worked at Yucca mountain (where the government wants to sequester waste) said there was no way they could guarantee long term safety. I don't know what the exact risk is, but when you're working on ten-thousand-year timescales it's worth being a little cautious.

adrianN 14y ago
The solution to nuclear waste is burning it up in breeder reactors. Who don't have to store the stuff for aeons if we risk producing weapons grade material in between.

zerostar07 14y ago

- Government solved the problem of building rockets first. - The falling costs of green energy make it a mid-term solution too.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

Apocryphon 14y ago

His conclusion is that only government taking the initiative will fix things: "political leaders and the public must care to solve a problem". But generally, only the governments of first world nation states can operate on that sort of level. They have the resources and are not accountable to voters the same way corporations are accountable to shareholders. Even the most impressive company couldn't have undertaken the Manhattan Project.

freyr 14y ago

The author isn't concluding that only the government will fix things. He's concluding that, in the past, the government has used its vast influence and resources to successfully identify and tackle huge technological challenges. And the government has not done that lately. Secondarily, he's pointing out that, a great deal of private capital is being funneled into trivial endeavors. The VCs themselves recognize this; many made their money by hitting the software start-up lottery, but now they want to "change the world" by funding something "big." But what do they find? Apps are still selling, apps are easy, apps are cheap. Science, on the other hand, is hard and risky. What to do?

lutorm 14y ago

SpaceX doesn't really build rockets to go to Mars... It might, one day, but it's a provider of rockets, not a private space exploration venture. Someone's going to need to buy that Mars launch off of them for that to happen.

sixbrx 14y ago
Not really, they just need to keep selling satellite launches around Earth to help pay for the eventual Mars shot. Sometimes companies do stuff because they or their founders just want to. Musk has made no secret that he plans to walk on Mars.

mcguire 14y ago

"He mentions SpaceX, but only in the context that its founder is one of the members of Founders Fund. Not a word about SpaceX building ships to go to Mars." I have a suspicion that SpaceX going to Mars does not scale. It has the same problem as NASA sending men to the moon: If SpaceX goes to Mars, it'll be because Elon wants to. When the trip to Mars is over, or if Elon gets bored or dies, the game is over. (Unless, of course, I'm wrong and there is some commodity available from there that would make the trip worthwhile.)