Re:SLS vs. Starship
by wongarsu on Friday November 13, 2020 @12:42PM
(#25085028)
I have no clue what GP is proposing, but "strategic capability" projects tend to be in red states because those are the low-population states where you can spread things out enough to be somewhat resistant to nuclear attacks. Being far from the coast is preferable for similar reasons (more time to intercept missile attacks).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Some of the low population states have had certain facilities allocated specifically because the facilities would be high priority target for ICBMs, thus making them "nuclear bomb sponges".
Yes, if you put your facility in the middle of San Francisco you give the enemy two targets for one bomb. Better make them work for it (and have a slightly higher chance that either your facility or part of San Francisco survives)
The problem with synthetic bio is that it's going to be pretty hard to drag synbio people away from boston, and I don't think the NIH is leaving bethesda any time soon.
I guess my comment is pretty scattered rereading it now - I guess that's because as you mentioned we don't know what exactly was being proposed - synthetic bio is wide enough it could refer to a million different wildly divergent things.
Sorry my comments are so vague. I'm thinking along the lines of the existing CIADM centers, but with different capabilities.
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/barda/core-services/c...