Re: top ten reasons there'll be faster progress
- From: "Jordan" <JSBassior2001@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jun 2006 01:43:31 -0700
Joe Strout wrote:
Well, for starters, this is almost always the nature of technological
progress. Check out any of Kurzweil's work, for example [1]; he has
plotted quantitative progress over time on a wide variety of
technologies, and finds an exponential curve again and again. The
illusion of linear progress is a result of the fact that, on the very
short timescale at which our attention generally operates, an
exponential curve is approximately linear. But that approximation
quickly breaks down at longer time scales.
To be precise, progress in a technology proceeds in S-curves. A long
slow start which at a certain point curves upwards exponentially, until
it approaches the physical limitations of the scientific principle
being exploited, at which point it asymptotically approaches that
limit. At this point, what generally happens is that a new technology
starts, and the S-curve repeats itself for that technical purpose. You
can see this in transport tech with (for example) railroad trains,
groundcars, and airplanes. What Joe's saying is that we're almost done
with the long slow start phase and orbital spaceflight is about to grow
exponentially. I hope he's correct on this.
Next, let's consider all the things that were being done wrong for the
last 30 years, which are finally starting to change:
- Space was developed as a massively wasteful government program;
without any tangible benefits, such programs are politically
unsustainable, leading to the stagnation we have seen. Now, we are
seeing substantial progress being made on a commercial basis (e.g. Zero
Gravity, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX), and this is far more likely to be
self-sustaining, leading to progress.
Yes. The reason is that private carriers are more likely to push for
efficiency over prestige or perfection.
- Once the cold war rivalry as justification for space development
evaporated, the space community seized on science as its raison d'etre.
This was a mistake; space science is almost entirely pure research, and
there isn't much money in that (in the short term anyway); moreover,
similar amounts of pure research could be done on the ground for far
less money, making every space project a political battle.
Not only that, but it led to a scientific elitist attitude towards
space as some zone of purity which must never be corrupted by human
beings or their dirty little practical purposes. This has produced
absurdities such as space scientists actively _opposing_ the manned
exploration of space, even though such exploration would actually
advance their research purposes as well (by putting scientists
literally "on the ground" of many of the celestial bodies they want to
study). And, of course, the public has been unenthusiastic about
paying for research whose _advocates_ are arguing is purely theoretical
and never to be of any practical value to any non-scientists!
Now space is
being developed for more mundane but far more profitable purposes, like
space tourism. The only politics involved here is in regulation, and
that seems to be going reasonably well so far.
Right. One thing that helps is that there are multiple national
agencies involved in orbital launches: witness what happened when NASA
tried to block tourism on the ISS.
- Flight rate. So far, about 500 humans have ever been in space.
Virgin Galactic plans to fly about 500 passengers per year. Manned
space launches currently happen at a rate of about half a dozen
(launches, not people) per year; Virgin will be flying more than once
per week. And of course, VG will not be the only game in town; Space
Adventures also seems pretty credible to me in their plans for
suborbital tourism. So in a few years, we're looking at a flight rate
orders of magnitude higher than what we have now. Even if this is
suborbital rather than orbital, this will result in a much faster
feedback & revision cycle, and so faster progress.
.... and the technologies required for suborbital and for orbital flight
are essentially the same; the difference is an issue of single versus
multistage rockets.
- Advances in related technologies. Electronics, GPS, avionics, and
other technologies are now available in forms that were science fiction
30 years ago. They're not only dramatically more capable, but
dramatically cheaper, too. These make up a substantial fraction of the
cost of a spacecraft, even if not the weight, and advances is these
should drive the overall cost down too.
Very much so.
Anybody want to add to this list?
Sure.
More national-level players. The first Space Race was America vs.
Russia. We now see America, Russia and China launching manned
missions; Europe, Japan and Israel are close to manned spaceflight
technology. National-level players are important for two reasons (a)
they do the licensing of private space ventures, and (b) as of yet,
they are doing all the orbital launches.
The more players the merrier because if one player (say, America via
NASA) wants to discourage private space ventures, it wil swiftly find
that the other players are only too happy to take the business away
from them. (This is what actually happened over the last 25 years with
NASA and the Russian Space Agency). Also, if one player (say, Russia)
withdraws from a specific goal such as Lunar Exploration, the other
players can keep advancing towards that goal.
The multipolarity of present space exploration and exploitation renders
it robust; makes it less probable that there will be another Retreat
from Space such as we saw in the 1970's.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
.
- References:
- top ten reasons there'll be faster progress
- From: Wayne Throop
- Re: top ten reasons there'll be faster progress
- From: Joe Strout
- top ten reasons there'll be faster progress
- Prev by Date: Re: Foam and rescue possibilities
- Next by Date: Re: top ten reasons there'll be faster progress
- Previous by thread: Re: top ten reasons there'll be faster progress
- Next by thread: Re: Salvation Of Mankind Is Not Going To Be Found In Space
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
