OK, but I don’t do windows. Or Windows, for that matter. 
You make perfect sense, and I give you full credit for good motives… What concerns me, though, is that the technology that would be involved would tempt some people to misuse… The very wisdom we might gain from such manipulation is the wisdom we need before we dare make use of it!
There is a book, “What Sort of People Should There Be?” by Jonathan Glover. He explores these ideas in some depth.
(To be flippant…if tatooing and piercing are any indication, I don’t trust mankind to engage in self-modification!)
Trinopus
Manhatten project - renewable energy; youre reading Friedman right now arent you? 
Im one of those who really doesnt see the point in the whole Apollo program/moon landing. Bread and circuses is all that was as far as Im concerned.
The original manhatten project was something that was clearly necessary, as opposed to something that, say, could lead to a dozen different answers from a dozen different posters on a message board. These types of questions are interesting in that they reveal more about the people answering them than they have of ever really arriving at any conclusion.
Personally I think the desire to have some sort of unified task that we all join hands and take part in while our spirits soar over the wind dark sea laa dee doo daa is a desire that indicates an emotional problem/lack on the part of the one doing the desiring.
Such a desire is a Cold wishing it had a War, an open space wishing it had a wall, a crowd at a concert wishing it had a security guard. We each have our own very real individual barriers to break, why try to create artificial ones that we all have to be burdened with?
What is it about people that they can have such little self respect that the only time they feel usefull or feel they are doing something usefull is when theyre a member of a ‘team’ or part of a group?
Does the sheer number of people who agree make something more or less important to you? If you feel the Manhatten Project should be about renewable energy, what does it matter what anyone here may think, or whether we agree? Can you be swayed so easily?
You decide for yourself what your Manhatten Project is. Ill decide what mine is. He’ll decide what his is, and she’ll decide what hers is all the while they decide what theirs is.
Rather than one thing getting done one time at once, a baziilion things will get done all at the same time, all the time, always. Its allready happening all around you.
You’re not getting it. The interest here isn’t in doing something “together” as such, for the sake of togetherness, but in doing something big. That simply requires massive-scale cooperation. If you want to go to the moon all by yourself, nobody’s stopping you. But it ain’t gonna happen, either. Without team cooperation, only individuals out for themselves, we’d have a hunter-gatherer society, and not one of the more advanced ones, either. But you’d be happier, huh?
If you want to go to the moon all by yourself, nobody’s stopping you. But it ain’t gonna happen, either. “Emotional problem/lack”, you say? Think again where that exists.
Manhatten project - renewable energy; youre reading Friedman right now arent you?
Im one of those who really doesnt see the point in the whole Apollo program/moon landing. Bread and circuses is all that was as far as Im concerned.
The original manhatten project was something that was clearly necessary, as opposed to something that, say, could lead to a dozen different answers from a dozen different posters on a message board. These types of questions are interesting in that they reveal more about the people answering them than they have of ever really arriving at any conclusion.
Personally I think the desire to have some sort of unified task that we all join hands and take part in while our spirits soar over the wind dark sea laa dee doo daa is a desire that indicates an emotional problem/lack on the part of the one doing the desiring.
Such a desire is a Cold wishing it had a War, an open space wishing it had a wall, a crowd at a concert wishing it had a security guard. We each have our own very real individual barriers to break, why try to create artificial ones that we all have to be burdened with?
What is it about people that they can have such little self respect that the only time they feel usefull or feel they are doing something usefull is when theyre a member of a ‘team’ or part of a group?
Does the sheer number of people who agree make something more or less important to you? If you feel the Manhatten Project should be about renewable energy, what does it matter what anyone here may think, or whether we agree? Can you be swayed so easily?
You decide for yourself what your Manhatten Project is. Ill decide what mine is. He’ll decide what his is, and she’ll decide what hers is all the while they decide what theirs is.
Rather than one thing getting done one time at once, a baziilion things will get done all at the same time, all the time, always. Its allready happening all around you.
The development of agriculture wasnt a team effort, but an effort by a series of individuals each building on the discoveries of previous individuals, which is how all progress is made. Everything was teamwork while we were hunter gatherers, which is why we were hunter gatherers for sooo long. Individuals discover and create, teams implement.
And no, I wouldnt go to the moon by myself, because there was and is no material benefit in going to the moon. It wasnt and isnt worth the expenditure of resources.
Since there was no real benefit, I can only assume the motivation to be to do something for the sake of a sense of ‘unity’ be it national or whatever, or as you put it, for the sake of being together.
Youre right, I just dont get it. I also just dont get why people believe in god or the uni-mind, or why people feel the need to make shit up in order to feel better about themselves.
One thing ‘big’ that would need to be done would be for everyone to agree on what one thing should be done. Just the agreement itself would be such a ‘big’ achievement that nothing more need be accomplished.
Your post itself; you say its not about doing something together, its about doing something ‘big’, so I assume its just for the sake of doing something ‘big’?
If there is no necessity for doing something ‘big’, then why do it other than the touchy gooey feeling it gives you inside from having felt like an anonymous part of a mass of biological matter?
No, youre right, I just dont get it, and I hope I never do. If you cant explain it, then that should be telling you something.
The Manhattan and Apollo projects were not done for the sake of doing something together; they had specific goals (albeit military/nationalistic goals) which were accomplished through massive team effort. We’re not talking about a project like the ISS which is arguably a “international cooperation for the sake of cooperation” mission. (Which is unavoidable, considering one of the important goals is to keep the Russian aerospace engineers employed and maintain their technological infrastructure.)
The question in this thread is, what are some goals which require and justify similar level of cooperation? There are two categories of such projects:
[ul]
[li]“Big Science” projects which promises to further our knowledge[/li][li]Development of a commercially important technnology which is too expensive and high-risk for private companies, but potentially change the world[/li][/ul]
The Hubble Space Telescope and its successors are examples of the first category. A particle accelerator comparable to (or larger than) the SSC would be another example. Of the latter, the only one that comes to mind is the development of a completely reusable orbital launch vehicle. There are so many fields of science and engiineering which would be revolutionalized by cheap access to space.
As for alternative energy, I think there is enough incentive for private companies to develop alternative energy sources. Unless it turns out that solar power satellites are the best solution.
Well, coal does contribute about 50-55% of the total electric generation of the US. One would think that increasing funding for clean coal research would be hailed as a Good Thing, since it has and does work to reduce coal pollution from all sources - SO2, CO, NOx, particulates, heavy metals, solid wastes, and even CO2 (via efficiency increases). Not that renewable funding shouldn’t be drastically increased (there was another thread just in the last two weeks that had ideas for a renewable energy “Manhattan Porject”, BTW) but you’re not arguing for reducing CCT research, right?
Well, yes. That’s sort of the sine qua non, isn’t it? 
1xA
Place large water balloon at spot X on asteroid A. Place Nuke 1 as shown. Detonate nuke. The water balloon will act as a medium of transmission, making sure that more of the concussive force of the nuke is transmitted, in order for a more sure vector change.
The next Manhattan Project should be deciding what the next Manhattan Project should be about.
So an ice balloon then? If nothing else you get a great big momentum change from the vapourized water. Likely more uniform than just scorching the surface of the rock anyway.
If you want the government to spur space technology, I recommend govenrment-funded ‘prizes’ something like the X-prize.
The government could offer 500 million to the first private organization to launch a manned spaceship into orbit, orbit at least X times, return, and then do it again with the same craft within one month.
A billion dollars to the first private organization to orbit a man around the moon.
Another billion to the first private moon landing.
Ten billion to the first private company to put a man on Mars and return him safely.
Then just sit back, and see what happens. Put a five year time limit on the orbital flight, ten on the moon flight, and twenty on the Mars flight. If you want, throw in other prizes for other things that need to be done - How about a race to Jupiter? Unmanned craft of a reasonable weight, the one to make the fastest trip in the next ten years gets a billion dollars.
Let’s unleash some private creativity and see what people can come up with. If they can’t come up with anything, the government doesn’t have to pay out a nickel, and a lot of research gets done anyway.
The history of technology ‘prizes’ like this is that they return their cost many times over. For example, the ‘X’ prize is 10 million dollars, and there are a dozen companies who have each spent probably as much or more on their programs if you added up all the donated equipment and labor. And, you leave open the door to competition and innovation instead of design-by-government-committee.
I don’t think the government could have ever come up with a reusable spacecraft like this…
Grey: I was simplifying and using the popular media term for it. Guy got horribly ridiculed for it briefly, and it’s a technically functional idea.
No I like the idea to a certain extent. At least the ice would allow for a uniform surface you could vapourize that would avoid all the unknowns of scorching a soot covered rock.
Got a link?
A pessimistic view from author/polemicist James Howard Kunstler (from http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary8.html):
Emphasis added. I know we’ve already had a thread on this, but it’s still an appropriate topic for this one: Is it possible that the “hydrogen economy” is a great big dead end? The hydrogen has to be extracted from natural gas (non-renewable resource) or separated out of water by electrolysis, which requires a massive power source – e.g., nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Where’s the progress in that?
My Manhattan Project vote would be for space development. We might never colonize Mars within our lifetimes, but how about the Moon? It has practically unlimited living space and untapped mineral resources. Of course, Antarctica and Greenland also have untapped mineral resources; they remain untapped because nobody has figured out a way to mine them profitably when you have to dig through an ice shield first. But if government puts enough funding into it, it is just possible we can find a way to reduce space payload costs so far that it is actually cheaper to mine the Moon than to mine Antarctica. And once we’re on the moon, we’re halfway to anywhere! We have a stable, low-gravity manufacturing-and-launching platform at the top of Earth’s gravity well! I expect the first successful expedition to Mars will be launched from the Moon, not from Earth.
I think this should include R&D for a space elevator. I was at Torcon 3, the World Science-Fiction Convention, in Toronto this past Labor Day weekend, and there was a panel on the space elevator, hosted by a couple of guys from a company (forget it’s name) that’s working on developing the materials. I asked them, assuming the enormous technical obstacles can be overcome, how long would it be before we got a space elevator, and what would it cost? They said, ten years, and around $50 billion. Well! That’s all? We spend more on a stretch of interstate highway! Of course, I would naturally add five years to their time estimate, just to allow for Hofstadter’s Law (“It always takes longer than you think, even when you allow for Hofstadter’s Law.”).
There’s a lot of really weird things you find out in the world when you search for “asteroid defense”. If I find it… anyhow. Defending against asteroids is much easier when you have a simple method of lifting things into space.
Hey, found it. Airbag. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992730
A faster than light drive. Or at least delving into the nooks and crannies of physics to see if one is lurking there somewhere.
Posted by AtomicDog:
Cutting-edge research in physics is always a Good Thing, AtomicDog, but for this thread, let’s focus on things that can be useful to us within our lifetimes. With the present state of our technology . . . when we argue over whether faster-than-light travel is possible, we are like people of the 18th Century arguing whether the sound barrier can be broken, when the fastest thing we’ve actually got is a racehorse. We’ll have to clear a lot of hurdles before we can even think of building an FTL drive, even if one is theoretically possible, which contemporary physics says it isn’t.
At present, we don’t even have a constant-boost drive, which is much more important. Space travel consists of giving the spaceship one big PUSH and then letting it drift in free fall until it reaches its target point – which is effective, but slow. It would take at least half a year just to reach Mars that way. It would go much faster if we had a drive that could accelerate the ship at a steady 1g, reversing direction of thrust midway through the trip – but we don’t have such a drive, nor any idea how to build one. The problem is that boost requires reaction mass, which the ship has to carry with it, and all unused reaction mass is part of the mass of the ship. When I watch shows like Star Trek, what amazes me is not that the ships can go faster than light, but that they can move at all without expelling reaction mass – and apparently without any inertial effects on the ship’s interior. Of course, we would need an “inertial damper” or something before an FTL drive would be useful, otherwise the crew would get squished against the bulkheads and the whole ship would fold up like an accordion.
The first step is to find cheaper ways of getting things from Earth into orbit. Single-stage-to-orbit spaceships might provide this, and we’ve already discussed the space elevator or “beanstalk.” But we have to do that, before we can even think about things like traveling to the nearer stars.