Fusion, Cold Fusion, and Space Policy DANA ROTEGARDf SUMMARY This paper critiques American science policy through a consideration of two examples-cold fusion and asteroid mining. It points out that the failure of central planning in science and technology policy is just as marked as in more mundane activities. It highlights the current low level of debate and points out some technical issues that need to be addressed. It concludes with evidence that the alliance of flawed policy options is further lowering the level of debate. In March 1989 two chemists from the University of Utah, Drs. Martin Fleischman and B. Stanley Pons, announced to the press, prior to peer review and publication, that they had succeeded in achieving fusion of deuterium atoms in a palladium metal matrix. The announcement scooped a rival team led by a Dr. S. E. Jones, based at Brigham Young University, that was doing similar research on a Department of Energy grant. The original papers1'2 along with extensive third party commentary were available on the Minnesota World Space Society, (formerly L-5) computer network immediately after the press announcement. Attempts to duplicate the original results were mixed, but intense and sustained criticism all but destroyed the credibility of cold fusion research. The substance of the controversy should revolve around what, if anything, happens in a metal matrix soaked in hydrogen or deuterium ions and charged with electricity. The issue should be the province of specialists in metallurgy, quantum mechanics and experimental design in the physical sciences. However, Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution3 argued persuasively that the human politics in science limit the reception of new thinking, and this is particularly true when new thinking threatens established public funding patterns. American space policy has evolved over 40 years from Von Braun's articles in Collier's on what was to become Apollo to today's NASA which can keep spending $2.0 x 109 per year on a space station opposed by the scientific community it is supposed to serve. The politics of American space funding have developed gradually without clear debates over what amounts to centrally planned industrial policy. The cold fusion debate developed rapidly leaving little time for political subtleties. The financial implications of cold fusion to established hot fusion workers has led to the most extreme possible positions being taken at once. This reduced the subsequent fusion debate to absurdity, but highlights by analogy the more subtle long term corruption of American space policy. Dana Rotegard, Associate in Space Economics, CST Ltd.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==