Results from the Bennu asteroid return mission, Eleven Labs lets you clone your voice, a possible super-Earth with a nitrogen atmosphere, AI docs make it into the real world...and a lot more!
I enjoy these newsletters and appreciate the fusion white paper. Having spent four decades in or near fusion research, it seems to me that there is a very substantial omission from that paper. DT Fusion systems that are successful but not yet able to provide economically competitive power are prodigious neutron sources. Among other options, they can breed thorium into U235, which can be used to power fission reactors. One moderately sized fusion system could fuel 25 of those reactors. This would be a natural intermediate step toward "pure fusion". The pure dreamers seem uninterested, however.
That's a great point actually. We did consider adding in some uses for high neutron sources that can be used on the way to fusion energy, but the white paper was getting a bit long by that point. Might include it in another update though. Closest company I can think of doing this sort of thing is SHINE Technologies. They have a four step plan where the final step is "pure fusion," but where steps one through three use the neutrons for other purposes. Neutron imaging, medical isotope production, and remediation of nuclear waste / fuel recycling.
Not that I know of, but I could be wrong. Actually, there's several large oil companies that have invested in private fusion energy attempts already. So far, fusion seems not to have attracted much opposition, probably because it's not actually viable yet. Once it is, then we'll see. I expect most opposition to come from the same misguided environmentalists that oppose fission.
Especially the nano medical.advances and the Mars terraforming. What evil could be done with nanoparticles that can kill cells, but what wonders to kill cancer so seemingly easily. What will happen when the surface of a planet so.close.to.ours is changed so dramatically? My husband gets frustrated because I always have such questions. I am always wondering . . .
My view is that looking at history, any technology has the potential to be used for good or evil purposes. To be used or misused is another way of saying it. But also looking at history, on balance technology has been an overwhelming positive for humanity.
Nanotechnology or terraforming won't be any different. That's my opinion anyways.
I agree, it's not even trying to be reusable. I was told that the EU plans to have a partly reusable rocket by 2030. But even if that timeline doesn't slip, they'll be 15-20 years behind SpaceX, and at least a decade behind China.
Is the EU even relevant for anything technological any more? I'd say no. The only thing they do well now is throw up bans and bureaucratic roadblocks.
Regarding the last question — last time I checked, Sweden was in Europe:
> Across the pond, researchers in Sweden have created nanorobots (nanites, for all you Stargate fans out there) that carry a peptide capable of inducing cell death
If creating nanobots isn't technologically relevant, I don't know what is.
I enjoy these newsletters and appreciate the fusion white paper. Having spent four decades in or near fusion research, it seems to me that there is a very substantial omission from that paper. DT Fusion systems that are successful but not yet able to provide economically competitive power are prodigious neutron sources. Among other options, they can breed thorium into U235, which can be used to power fission reactors. One moderately sized fusion system could fuel 25 of those reactors. This would be a natural intermediate step toward "pure fusion". The pure dreamers seem uninterested, however.
That's a great point actually. We did consider adding in some uses for high neutron sources that can be used on the way to fusion energy, but the white paper was getting a bit long by that point. Might include it in another update though. Closest company I can think of doing this sort of thing is SHINE Technologies. They have a four step plan where the final step is "pure fusion," but where steps one through three use the neutrons for other purposes. Neutron imaging, medical isotope production, and remediation of nuclear waste / fuel recycling.
I imagine OPEC, etc., have many lobbyists trying to stop this technology.
Not that I know of, but I could be wrong. Actually, there's several large oil companies that have invested in private fusion energy attempts already. So far, fusion seems not to have attracted much opposition, probably because it's not actually viable yet. Once it is, then we'll see. I expect most opposition to come from the same misguided environmentalists that oppose fission.
I used ElevenLabs. Well... tried to. Their interface is much worse than play.ht or Speechify, and voice selection is poorer.
That's good to know, i haven't had a chance to use it yet. I'll still give it a go at some point.
Open mouth, Insert Foot https://open.substack.com/pub/michael880/p/open-mouth-insert-foot?r=3b6pw1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Nice write-up Owen.
Unfortunately, the Ariane 6 is already outdated. They remain 10+ years behind SpaceX…a total lack of thinking ahead.
Fascinating and frightening.
Which parts?
Especially the nano medical.advances and the Mars terraforming. What evil could be done with nanoparticles that can kill cells, but what wonders to kill cancer so seemingly easily. What will happen when the surface of a planet so.close.to.ours is changed so dramatically? My husband gets frustrated because I always have such questions. I am always wondering . . .
My view is that looking at history, any technology has the potential to be used for good or evil purposes. To be used or misused is another way of saying it. But also looking at history, on balance technology has been an overwhelming positive for humanity.
Nanotechnology or terraforming won't be any different. That's my opinion anyways.
I agree, it's not even trying to be reusable. I was told that the EU plans to have a partly reusable rocket by 2030. But even if that timeline doesn't slip, they'll be 15-20 years behind SpaceX, and at least a decade behind China.
Is the EU even relevant for anything technological any more? I'd say no. The only thing they do well now is throw up bans and bureaucratic roadblocks.
And socialist policies.
100%
Regarding the last question — last time I checked, Sweden was in Europe:
> Across the pond, researchers in Sweden have created nanorobots (nanites, for all you Stargate fans out there) that carry a peptide capable of inducing cell death
If creating nanobots isn't technologically relevant, I don't know what is.