Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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.
"Derp de derp."
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.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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:
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?
http://michaelsmith.id.au