You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

knb comments on What are "the really good ideas" that Peter Thiel says are too dangerous to mention? - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: James_Miller 12 April 2015 09:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (78)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 13 April 2015 12:47:22PM *  4 points [-]

Regarding NASA and research suppression, I have an extremely difficult time understanding what could draw you to that conclusion. All manner of space based weaponry has been looked into by governments and found not terribly useful or practical. The energy you can bring along on a spacecraft is likewise very limited by mass constraints. The history of successes and failures in propulsion technology does not need a human cause; the universe itself may be to blame as may economic or practicality or political issues.

EDIT: a few figures to give some idea of scale. The Saturn V rocket carried a total chemical energy of ~2.5 kilotons of TNT full on the launchpad. A small subset of that winds up in the kinetic energy of motion. The Dawn probe can manage ~10 km/s by leaving its ion engine on for years on end and using electricity to shove fuel out the back extremely rapidly, producing a total kinetic energy change equivalent to ~14 tons of TNT (and not carrying the necessary energy in its fuel, merely using the sun to accelerate an inert gas electrically, and imparting much more kinetic energy to its fuel than to the spacecraft itself). Imagining a nuclear reactor driving a VASIMR or somesuch, if you used it up accelerating something for months you would create a projectile with a kinetic energy of impact a small fraction of that which you could get by using the core to make a nuclear bomb instead.

Comment author: knb 14 April 2015 12:45:20AM 0 points [-]

Regarding NASA and research suppression, I have an extremely difficult time understanding what could draw you to that conclusion.

Don't misrepresent what I said. I did not state I had made a "conclusion." My reason for wondering about it is that NASA has devoted surprisingly few resources to advanced propulsion research. Something people have been complaining about for years. I think bureaucratic inertia and congressional meddling are more likely explanations, but there is no reason it has to be an either/or.

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 April 2015 10:57:11PM 0 points [-]

Another explanation would be that they consider advanced propulsion research military and therefore classified the research they do.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 15 April 2015 10:35:50PM 0 points [-]

Apologies for wording. Agreement on there being annoying issues that are cause for thought. On top of that I think it's clear they could even be doing more with the technologies they currently have.