NASA Supporting Nanotech Development

It doesn't come easy writes "In laboratories around the country, NASA is supporting the burgeoning science of nanotechnology. The basic idea is to learn to deal with matter at the atomic scale -- to be able to control individual atoms and molecules well enough to design molecule-size machines, advanced electronics and "smart" materials."

Comments

Should be more like this

[MichaelSmith]

NASA excells when they are funding or developing something totally new. They are not so good at mundane operational issues.

For example NASA let SRB O-ring problems creep up on them over many years. Same thing with TPS damage by foam. They don't deal with things which change slowly over time. They work on feel, rather than analysis.

But as developers of totally amazing stuff (Mercury, gemini, Apollo, Shuttle) they do very well.

My advice: if anything comes of this nanotech effort, NASA should sell the technology to private industry as fast as possible. Get out of the operational side and start developing the next big thing.

Back to the shuttle. Once the system was developed it could have continued to be funded and regulated by one or more Government departments, I just don't think NASA is the department to do the job.

Re:Should be more like this

[Bogtha]

if anything comes of this nanotech effort, NASA should sell the technology to private industry as fast as possible.

Sell? The public funds NASA. NASA's research should go back to who paid for it instead of locking it up within one company. I thought the USA was supposed to be a capitalist society? Let anybody use this new technology and there will be competition instead of one company doing everything.

Re:I say, awesome.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Well, they seem to have trouble exploring the infinitely large, so they may have better luck with the infinitely small...

What about nano-economics?

[pieterh]

If there's one lesson that the shuttle sage should have taught NASA - even without the many other demonstrations from around the world such as Japan's 5th Generation Computing, the EU's Eureka programme, etc. - is that large-budget top-down science does not produce value for money.

The best motor for innovation is competition, and the main problem with NASA-style science is that it eliminates scientific and engineering competition and replaces it with burocratic competition. Real progress is made by small teams that see risk as opportunity, while NASA-style science is done by large teams that see risk as something to be avoided at all costs.

Let's see research conducted around a much more open competition for the available money, provided more in the form of prizes and awards and less as research grants.

Let's stop paying people on their skills in writing grant applications and start rewarding people for their ability to think in creative and useful ways.

Re:What about nano-economics?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Real progress is made by small teams that see risk as opportunity, while NASA-style science is done by large teams that see risk as something to be avoided at all costs.

First of all, up to recently, space exploration was an activity that can't possibly be boosted by competition. Totally New Things[tm] usually come from government-funded research labs, such as the ARPANET, the moon landing program, etc... That's because such ground-breaking experiments can only be put together at a complete loss. Once the road is open, let competition pave it.

Secondly, it's true NASA today is stifled by a risk-avoiding attitude, but that's only because the administration (and the public) doesn't really have a strong desire to go to space, therefore any small problem leads to a reduction in NASA budget. The great things NASA did in the past were done because the administration just had to achieve what Kennedy promised, otherwise they'd have lost the race to the moon. In that light, loss of astronauts and giant rockets exploding right and left weren't very big concerns compared to losing face with the USSR. Nowadays, there is no USSR to compete against.

Re:What about nano-economics?

[MichaelSmith]

Let's stop paying people on their skills in writing grant applications and start rewarding people for their ability to think in creative and useful ways.

I think science is totally broken because of the secretive, competitive approach which scientists take to towards their work.

Science is not really a commercial activity, people who spend 10 years working on something and lose in the last month to another team can have their entire career at risk over small issues of secrecy and professional ethics.

An open source approach in science would accomplish two things:

1. You could easily prove who had what idea first
2. Scientists could immediately build on the work of others without being accused of plagurism

Right now, working in science is too much of a risk for people in some fields; particularly biotech. Why devote your career to something when you are judged by a first past the post system?

Re:What about nano-economics?

[A beautiful mind]

Real science is what you've described.

Commercialized science is not science, just refining.

I wonder...

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

I wonder if we will ever get to the point of nanotechnology described in Neal Stephenson's book The Diamond Age, where we have complete control of atoms and can buld infinetly strong structures infinetly small.

If we do the problem of sending vehicles to X will be much easier to due the fact that there would not be hardly as much inertia to overcome.

Its pretty obvious why NASA has there hands in nanotechnology development.

Nanotech - otherwise known as Chemistry

[PDoc]

Fir gawd sake! Dealing with matter on an atomic level has been around since Newton's time - and in it's modern incarnation since the late 19th century. It's called chemistry. Using macroscopic tools to inact precise molecular interactions and rearrangements. You know it's gone way to far when simple crown-ether derivatives get renamed "molecular cages" or worse "nano capsules" in an attempt to get funding. Want some funding for your research proposal? Drop in "nano", "bio" and "green" a few times, loose any detail of what you're acutally trying to do, and no problem...

Re:Nanotech - otherwise known as Chemistry

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Nanoscience/Nanotechnology is the intersection of Physics, Chemistry, and/or Biology. It is when two or three of these fields is combined synergistically.

Yes, the study of small things has been around for hundreds of years. But you will find that within the last 100 years chemistry and physics have grown in their tangents. Nanoscience is putting them back together along with biology.

Re:Nanotech - otherwise known as Chemistry

[QuantumG]

An idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about gets modded up by other idiots who don't know he's an idiot. Gotta love Slashdot. It'd be funny if it didn't remind us so much of the US congress.

Re:Nanotech - otherwise known as Chemistry

[PDoc]

True, that's the pure premise of nanotech, but it doesn't seem to work like that. I'm an organic chemist, so most of this materials stuff isn't in my domain, but I do read and understand most of the journals. And the flaw is that because governments and the appropriate bodies love nanotech as a buzz word, far too many researchers use the term overliberally, and corrupt it's true meaning.
Nasa has every right, and should be at the forefront of research into new materials et c. But this is materials chemistry/physics/engineering. Not nanotech.

hmm

[NanoGator]

Why do I have the feeling that before too much longer, 'nano' will be the next big buzzword? Buy the new 'NanoPod Video Player!'

Okay, sorry, I have nothing interesting to say about this article. Just remembering the good ol' days when every new exciting tech began with an E.

I just don't get this

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time NASA comes up lately I see a bunch of libertarian extremists ranting about how public space programs are so evil and we need to destroy them so private space programs can flourish, and a bunch of NASA fanboys ranting about how the private space programs suck so much and they need to get out of the way so NASA can work.

WTF?

Why can't we have a great public space exploration program AND great private space development? We may not have either right now, but I don't see any reason we can't have both. In particular I don't see why either public or private space development is helped by trying to demolish or tear down the other one.

Wow

[unts]

Nanotechnology is going to be huge!