Saturday, January 4, 2014

Wine-Dark Sea


Not to belabor the obvious, but I have taken a long and unplanned vacation from this blog. After more than six years it has become a challenge to come up with topics that have not already been beaten to death here.

So I will make absolutely no promises about frequency or consistency of posting, but here you go!




There is a curious enchantment to Dark Ages. They are dark mainly to us, with few if any written records, yet they loom large in our imaginative heritage.

The Dark Age of Greece - by convention it is in the singular, not 'Dark Ages' - might be dated with traditionalist pseudo-precision as running from 1174 BC to 776 BC. The end date is the first Olympiad, the earliest recorded date of 'historical' Greece. The start date is ten years after the fall of Troy, when Odysseus finally gets back to Ithaca, last of all the surviving Achaean heroes to make his way home.

The traditional dates for the Trojan War itself, 1194-1184 BC, were an estimate by Eratosthenes, better known in geekdom for his impressively accurate computation of the size of the Earth. But the first curious thing about the Dark Age of Greece is that his date for the fall of Troy is also impressively accurate, even though it was based on premises that were shaky, obscure, or both.
The current archeological dating for the destruction of Troy VIIa - a destruction apparently due to war - is given as 1230-1190/1180 BCE, a range that just neatly overlaps the traditional date.

True that Eratosthenes' dating was only one of several classical estimates for the fall of Troy, and if you include enough of the others you can make a plausible case that Eratosthenes merely got lucky. If you scatter a dozen estimates over a 200 or 300 year period, one of them is likely to fall within a couple of decades of any given date.

But 1184 became the standard traditional date for the fall of Troy. Score one for Eratosthenes, not to mention Homer.

To us the oddest episodes in the Odyssey may be when Odysseus' son Telemachus visits Sparta and finds Menelaus and Helen living in comfortable domesticity, as though all that awkward business about Paris of Troy had never happened. Other homecomings, the Nostoi in Greek tradition, were more turbulent.

Odysseus, not home yet, would have his own troubles, though they seem to end well for everyone except those annoying suitors (and the servingmaids who had been overly friendly with them). Most notorious of the homecomings was that of Agamemnon, King of Men, finished off in his bath by wife Clytemnestra. (She arguably had good reason.)

To judge by the archeological record, however, practically all of the homecomings must have gone badly. Every Mycenaean palace was destroyed, with the sole exception of the (rather minor) palace at Athens. As a further complication the wave of destruction - one scholar has dubbed it simply the Catastrophe - peaked right around 1200 BCE, slightly before the putative date of the Trojan War.

What sticks most in my mind is sandy Pylos, the city of wise old Nestor. Telemachus also visited Pylos in his journey, where he found Nestor leading his people in sacrificing bulls (or was it oxen?) to Poseidon. All seems to be going well for the Pylians - if Homer had wanted Foreshadowings of Doom in his narrative, he could have provided them, and he doesn't.

In fact, however, sandy Pylos went down in flames circa 1200 BCE. And unlike Mycenae, which struggled on through a couple of archeological destruction layers before final abandonment, Pylos went down for the count.

Left in the smouldering ruins were clay tablets, fortuitously baked in the conflagration, on which scribes had carefully recorded all the unromantic details of Bronze Age palace management.They also provide the Foreshadowings of Doom that immortal Homer does not: Watchers have been dispatched to guard the coast, some 600 rowers are being mustered, and there are hints of an emergency human sacrifice.


The fashion in the fairly recent past was to downplay any real connection between Bronze Age events and the Homeric tradition. The magisterial Moses I Finley dismissed any Bronze Age element in the epics as a mere few Mycenaean 'things.' Lately the scholarly fashion cycle seems to be going the other way, helped along by other fire-preserved clay tablets, from Hittite archives, that mention a place called Taruisa or Wilusa, and troublesome people called Ahhiyawa - evoking Troy, its alternate name Ilios, and the Achaeans, sackers of cities.

For historical, or para-historical fiction, this would be more than enough. A lot of plausible reconstruction of events can be slipped through the error bars in archeological dating. If Troy fell in 1230 BCE, then whatever happened to Pylos happened a generation after Telemachus' visit, give or take, and had no reason to be hinted at in the Odyssey. Perhaps it belonged to a different story line.

But that is the mystery and enchantment of the Greek Dark Age. Moses I Finley may have been wrong to dismiss 'Mycenaean things,' but he is right in saying not to judge a culture only by its material poverty.
An oral tradition persisted and developed through its obscure generations.

The tradition did not preserve everything. If there was ever an epic sung of the fiery end of Pylos, it vanished nearly without trace. (A sketchy account held that Nestor's descendents were exiled from Pylos, turned up in Athens, and eventually founded Ionia.) But the tradition did preserve some things, however much refracted by oral transmission.

It is unlikely that we will ever find a source document that directly records the specific people and events that have come down to us as the wrath of Achilles and the wanderings of Odysseus. We glimpse them - vividly so - across a wine-dark sea of time.



Discuss.




Obligatory space reference: When your subject is Odysseus, the Major Tom of Bronze Age heroes,  you don't really need an obligatory space reference. But I provided one anyway.


The image of an archaic era Greek galley comes from a Project Gutenberg ebook.

359 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 359 of 359
Tony said...

Incrementally upgrading a product is part of a normal development cycle.

WRT the pace SpaceX has moved at, think Dell -- they couldn't have invented their product in a million years, but they're good at making and selling what someone else has invented.

mufasa said...

i just read over my last post and I would like to apologize for that bad grammar.

Also postulating on that mythic "mcgruffinite" and we constantly look at it from a price per pound, but what about how it's sectioned? the higher the total cost is the higher the barriers to entry are.

Let's price it at a reasonable thousand dollars a pound. Instead of chunking it in multimillion dollar sizes, We go the way of the cube sat and have a standard packages to launch in ten, hundred and thousand pound weights in standardized containers.

and same year booking of said launches.

It gives the ability to send thousands of little probes and experiments from hundreds of universities, schools, businesses and NASA can easily appropriate money all sorts of small projects.

it's not a total solution, but it's a part of it.

side thought: if you could have ten pound pieces that are mostly heatshielded guidance packages could you create a cheap pinpoint strike system? think micro-thor.

Katzen said...

sorry wrong name: it's Katzen

Thucydides said...

Mufasa

While the idea of micro sats is interesting and could help break the "barrier" to large numbers of launches, it fails the sniff test for a number of reasons:

1. Cubesats, microsats etc. only exist because of the long term R&D work used to develop conventional satellites. Without the one, we would never have had the other.

2. It is cheaper and easier to stack a bunch of cubesats on a single large launcher than build a series of "Falcon 0.5" rockets to launch them individually. Since you need a set amount of velocity to reach orbit, rocket technology does not scale very well. Compare a V-2 to the Russian R-7 to see the difference using roughly contemporary technologies.

3. Size does matter. Would you take your Ford Focus to pick up a ton of gravel, or an F-250 pickup? (insert your own vehicle of choice). For many applications, larger, more capable spacecraft are a "must have" to carry large antenna or optics, high energy power supplies or remass to do in flight manoeuvres.

This isn't to say that there is no place for microsats, just they won't change the game in quite the way you are expecting.

Katzen

While you and I and many other people often smack themselves in the forehead because we "missed" an opportunity, let's consider that at the time we probably considered the risk factor to be outside our comfort zones. As well, hindsight isn't always 20/20: how many investments did we consider that turned out, in the end, to be dogs? Most of us don't think that way, (or would say "hey, I totally saw through those guys!")

Katzen said...

Thucydides
Sorry mufasa is an older and more personal name, and some people in real life know me by mufasa rather than my very generic real name so I stopped using it online. I forgot to enter a name in the box so it used the one I have for google.
Anyway I was thinking bundled launches. I use the very big IF of Spacex reaching the dream of reusable rockets with a price of 5-7 million dollars per launch. Do I think they will make that dream come true?
My nose says yes, but on a poker table I will say “check” for now. I’m Excited, but not stupid.
Anyway with a excess of launch capability at 700-500 pre pound with a payload of 10,000 pounds and can be chunked into smaller pieces. Lead time from delivery to launch 4 months. What could be profitable or at least fundable at that price? These thoughts come from book called free that talked about how when excess computer power was created we create “unnecessary” things like GUI and games.
So what unnecessary things could be launched into space? For one you could create “mission specific” probes that test and discover one thing or another. Say a probe built specifically to take pictures or collect a single soil sample. Another one is text only “blast” data satellite that can send a text message. Such a service could provide a good survival, emergency or business communication and be cheap enough to need only a few subscribers.
Not to mention thousands of hobbyists wanting to tinker with space equipment which at 5 to ten thousand for a 10lb probe would be affordable to some of the more wealthy hobbyists, and even to a large fraction of hobbyist teams.
Actually that last one is generating more ideas on its own. I have to let those cook for a while.
I wish I had a bigger comfort zone back then, I wasn’t in the feeling of jumping out on a limb back then, and I have a pretty reliable mental checklist for new technologies that will make it.

Thom S said...

On asteroid mining and energy, I recently stumbled across the idea to search and then mine asteroids for stable primordial black holes (which is, of course, on atomic rockets: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/basicdesign.php). This seems like a real source of mcguffinite waiting to be used, so I'd love to know what more learned people think of the possibilities. Have primordial black holes proven to be rarer than we thought? Or is it just too hard to capture and make use of the beasties?

Great to see that the blog readership is still actively hashing things out, by the way. The quality of the discussion here is always a mood-lifter.

Katzen said...

Whoa. I had a epiphany, a really big one actually.
There is a rocketpunk future that is possible in our time. There is a caveat, it does not include humans in space, and if there are they will play a marginal role, but it’s not as dreary as we might think.
I will say that these launches will be bundled because the launch vehicle is still millions of dollars.
Let’s say that a one hundred pound ship costs you 50 grand in launch costs (I am using a 500 per pound to orbit which is not there yet, but it’s not impossible). This “starship” is of course a probe, but it’s YOUR probe with which you can choose engine, guidance, camera, and anything else you want.
How many of you would be willing to join a team, or by yourself to do that. A ten man team each chips in 5 grand to pay for launch costs. I would be glad to join in a team like that.
And not just hobbyists.
Almost every company would be willing to sponsor a probe even if it’s just to show off a product (computer, material, manufacturing you name it), and documentaries about teams. The planets they visit and discoveries they might make.
There are feasible products too. A soil sample return mission would be worth millions (and the company would probably need something bigger than a hundred pound ship). Doesn’t matter where.
Universities could easily grant money for engineering teams and science students on a multiyear project.
And as for resource mining. A 500 pound ship designed to prospect an asteroid that has a good chance of being rich in platinum group metals. That’s a quarter million dollar ship, but the chance of return is billions.
I can only offer windows into my imagination, but while these robots may seem dull it is very exciting when you think of the wheeling and dealing of all the people on earth as the solar system opens up with a gold rush both metaphorical and very possibly physical as well.
But I will bring this thought to you.
Would you rather spend a million dollars to get into space for a week?
Or on a robotic star ship that can traverse the solar system?

Thucydides said...

Katzen

It was really weird to discover you are one and the same person, since the posting style of the Mufasa post seemed quite different.

OK, I see your point about bundled launches, and for the most part I agree that this would be real candy for high end hobbyists, university students and even small companies testing out ideas. A considerable market of small buyers, which will make a nice addition to the income ledger of launch service companies like SpaceX. Even government users can get in the act, I can think about the military launching constellations of small comms relays into orbit during a crisis, for example. Small recon sats to provide coarse grained coverage in a crisis might be useful as well.

I will caution on the idea that this technology can necessarily scale to planetary missions, this is one of those "size matters" issues. Even if the actual "brains" and sensors could fit into a cubesat, you might still need a Pioneer or Voyager sized bus to carry the power supply, antenna and everything else needed to send back your exciting pictures of Neptune or whatever you are doing.

Doing a sample return mission is even worse in that regard; you need to send a fully capable spacecraft to the target, one that can launch itself from the planet or moon and get back to Earth. ISR (like "Mars Direct") helps, but even then the machinery needed for ISR is going to be sizeable.

This has to do with the scaling issue I mentioned earlier: even when you are in orbit and "halfway to anywhere" you still need a set amount of deltaV to get to a specific destination. Robotic spacecraft to go to the asteroid belt, or Mars will probably need to weigh tons, not hundreds of pounds.

Still, the idea of getting launch costs down even farther to tap the hobby and small user market is feasible and quite doable (cubists are already amazingly cheap, I have seen YouTube videos of teams assembling cubesats in basement "labs").

Katzen said...

Thucydides.
I was writing with a different perspective. It happens and it’s actually frustrating to “see double” when talking to people. My opinion and thought process change dramatically in a conversation making me look like a hypocrite sometimes. I figure the best policy then is to explain why I changed my mind. I do this pretty often on this blog.
The “size matters” problem is there, but I was thinking in my head “it’s not the size but mass ratio that gives you your delta V” on the whole a probe could still cost millions, but the barrier still is low enough that even if you had something as large as the Cassini you would still pay only three million in launch costs at 500 per pound.

A large semi-professional hobby team with a decent sponsor could still make something large, but it wouldn’t have the same initial velocity.
I would have to do research on how heavy everything would be. Also it wouldn’t have the benefit of nuclear power like most of these long range probes would.

The concept is lowering the price of entry for these people. Between the internet, the massive obsession, and a few well to do sponsors they will be able to cobble all sorts of work arounds.

So I guess the inherent coolness of space might just be the resource that can be exploited. The price just needs to be in the range of sane.

Tony said...

Katzen:

Your spacecraft costs are way off. Planetary programs cost hundreds of millions of dollars to over a billion, of which the launch is at most $100M to $200M. If you cut the launch cost down to literally nothing, there's still no room for hobbyists or even interested pros with mere self or corporate funding.

Even with orbital activities, useful spacecraft cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. CubeSats are nice little toys, but even those can cost tens of thousands of dollars. And for that you only get one or two unsophisticated sensors and one or two data channels on omnidirectional radio. Once again, even if it cost literally nothing to get into space, the barriers to entry are too high for anybody but those who have actual business there.

Katzen said...

Tony:

do you have a pdf link on cost breakdown of spacecraft? That would help me out on understanding the argument.

The cost of a typical spacecraft or project mission... That normally includes things like design and development, testing, overhead (lots of overhead). Mission control, coding the software ect.

I make the argument that is costs in expertise and time. Many of hobbyists pump their time and expertise into a project for fun.

time and expertise is something that U.S government has a habit of wasting.

Tony said...

I don't have a link to a spacecraft cost breakdown, but one instructor at Delft Technical University estimates comsats at $70k-$150k per kilogram. And that's not counting technical and business support throughout the spacecraft's life cycle. Even at $10k per kilogram, launch costs are simply marginal.

Now, a lot of that can be ascribed to expensive technical labor. But all of that labor is necessary to make a reliable spacecraft. Remember, these things have to last ten to twenty years in a pretty harsh environment.

But let's take your hobby CubeSat idea and look at it a little more closely. First thing we have to realize is that this isn't something that a single person can do over ten or twelve years, learning all the necessary skills along the way. Even at unprecedentedly low launch costs, ya still have to make a scheduled launch date. So you're going to need the expertise of at least three engineers: mechanical, electrical, and software. And that presumes that the mechanical engineer can be his own precision machinist and electro-mechanical assembler, the electrical engineer can be his own electronics technician, and the software engineer knows each of several different software environments intimately. If not, add more people. That means design conferences, scheduling complications, module testing, systems integration, etc. And you still have to make launch date. well-funded commercial and institutional projects regularly fail under those pressures. Hobby projects? I'd be surprised if 10% of them ever made it as far as delivery to the launch site. Of those, I'd be surprised if 50% had a workable spacecraft a week into orbital deployment.

I know it's a mantra among the Space Cadets that government and corporations waste space program money. But they really don't. The business is just that difficult.

Cordwainer said...

The idea of a hobby cubesat though did get me thinking on a different line of thought. What would mass-produced families of mission specific cubesats offer in the way of space operation savings? High bandwidth communications satellites might be too complex and too large for a cubesat, but maybe you could justify a family of navigation satellites that combine GPS, geographic/meteorological and astronomical functions in a network of small satellites. Simple IR lasers and high resolution cameras pointed Earthside for detecting weather fronts and surveying the Earths surface to maintain accurate changes to GPS landmarks along with a simple telescope with digital camera for taking snapshots of the night sky to help maintain satellite guidance, detect sunspots, comets and meteorites for instance.

Katzen said...

Tony
I still am surprised how nice people here are, and bring out well thought out arguments. In my line of work there are not many space buffs, and talking to my wife while patient with me. To her it’s understandable as her line of work is to me, which is to say “barely able to visualize”.
So it’s good to talk to someone what goes through my head while I work and save for a debt free college life here in a few years.
I would see instead of building for a launch date a team would build then contract out a space on a bundled launch. I think in terms of Kitplanes. Someone who has spent many years dreaming of space wants to send a mission up. Buying and building the components, and having similar people around helping.
A decade long project would not be uncommon.
I have a bias when it comes to large government because my experience with them has pushed me that way. The waste is beyond reasoning, and talent wasting is about the biggest offense. Take a officer with actual pilot experience, a A&P license as well.
He now sits as a field artillery officer filling out supply forms.
Nasa might be a streamlined working organization that really is using every dollar for maximum utility, but I doubt it.
The thing about space probes is that they are either very limited run or a one off. The cost of development is unsurprising and without standard architecture.
What makes a space probe so expensive? Is it the testing? Ground support or actual construction? Or am I missing it entirely?
I have a old digital copy of SMAD I am going to read here while on a plane here soon.

Anonymous said...

Katzen, A big part of the cost of space probes is that the R&D costs can't be amoratized over a large production run and partly due to the fact that command and control costs are figured for three shifts, seven days a week, for years or decades. Paying nearly a hundred people a salary for 20-30 years, and figuring that into the initial production cost will really jack up the price of anything.

Ferrell

Geoffrey S H said...

I hate to say it but GITOW- Government Is The Only Way. There really is no way around it...

jollyreaper said...

What we're seeing here is conflicting ideology. When your only tool is a hammer, so on and so forth. When you know with a religious faith that government is never a solution, always the bad answer, then you will never consider an option that includes it. If you've had enough bad experiences with gigacorps and their abuses, you'll never trust anyone talking about market solutions.

The problem comes down to humans and scale. We work more efficiently in small groups. But some tasks just can't be done by small groups. You can get it done inefficiently with an army or it isn't getting done at all.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between the inefficiencies and corruption of a billion dollar corporation and a big government agency. The scaling problems are the same.

Rocket science is hard. The backyard inventor isn't putting together an amateur space vehicle. Elon Musk is making it happen. There's still every opportunity to fall flat on his face. After his death, there's every likelihood that his company will become just another big aerospace firm. It's hard to instill a culture that will last for generations.

But, as it stands, it looks like SpaceX may very well invent a reusable rocket. Five years ago, I was pretty certain such a thing was a lovely impossibility. Now, I think he's got a good chance of pulling it off. I am watching with interest.

Katzen said...

So space probes have a decently high cash burn rate with many years before intangible if any ROI.

Now the biggest Corporation I worked for was a shipping company and even though the individual worker wasn't efficient it was expertly managed and coordinated.

I can see how a corporation large enough could squirrel away a nasty amount of inefficiencies. It's just hard for me to see a company with a balance sheet and pockets that are not bottomless sweep multi million dollar waste under the rug.

back to space. I would say a different business would be necessary in a smaller company or government organization.

Any spacecraft today is like mixing a ultralight sailplane, with a jet fighter with a long haul truck. It's pushing the very limits of state of the art in the sciences with each probe.

removing one of the constraints of light, reliable and high performance will be what brings down the R&D costs.

P.S jollyreaper when I was a teen looking at space I actually stopped making it a hobby because I thought it was a impossibility with current technology and there wasn't anything in the pipeline that would work. If Spacex fails I will just put it on the back burner till something else comes around.

Cordwainer said...

Hmm! sweeping multimillion dollars of waste under the rug. Let's see Exxon, Citibank, Niemann Marcus just to name a few. Rarely does any business operate on honest accounting, they tend to slew the figures statistically to favor positive perception in the market. Not that there is anything wrong with such subtle cheating. Problem is when it isn't so subtle like in the cases mentioned above.

Cordwainer said...

Also, even if SpaceX is not successful in producing a reusable rocket I have no doubt others will. For instance SpaceX's 2nd stage booster landing and recovery system could be improved upon in my opinion.

Katzen said...

Cordwainer.

your right, I'm wrong. I don't know why it didn't come to mind when I wrote my last entry. I guess when it was shoved in my face for several years it kind of encompassed my view.

as much as I like hyping Spacex I know they have a much tougher time with the second stage being reusable, and I actually will not consider them a failure if they never quite get it right. The first stage to me is a amazing achivement.

Musk wants to go to Mars. I can see Spacex going by way of Microsoft after that with focusing on a core business and not really inventing anything revolutionary. That's not a huge problem since it at least brings down the cost of the most expensive leg of space travel.

Other people will want to figure out the other legs of the journey. manned or unmanned. It's that opening of LEO that's important. You can refuel, turn off the engines, and everything doesn't need to take multiple gravities or even one gravity.

I might be the voice of (un)reason here, but a probe broken down is a computer, a camera, a long range antenna, a solar (or otherwise) power source, other sensors and a structure to hold the thing together.

actually.... if you assembled machine in zero gravity in something the size of a car garage it might be a whole lot cheaper since said vehicle doesn't have to endure the ride up fully assembled. That wouldn't make a bad hard sci-fi story. A sort of car shop in SPAACCEE.

Tony said...

jollyreaper:

"But, as it stands, it looks like SpaceX may very well invent a reusable rocket. Five years ago, I was pretty certain such a thing was a lovely impossibility. Now, I think he's got a good chance of pulling it off. I am watching with interest."

It's already been done. The Space Shuttle, for all intents and purposes, was a flyback first stage. It just had an enormous drop tank and large rocket boosters to get the whole thing off the ground. Where SpaceX is trying to innovate is in not taking the whole stage up to orbit, but separating and recovering it after it's job is done. Now that's smart.

The difficulty, however, is in doing so in such a way that a real cost savings is achieved, and also in such a way that will attract customers. Let's not forget that the real issue with reusability is how much does it cost to actually recondition stage for flight, and how much confidence the customer has in the reconditioned stage. Space launch customers aren't in the business of supporting Elon Musk's dreams. They're in the business of buying launch services that have understood risks and rewards. Just like nobody ever lost his job by giving the contract to IBM, nobody is going to lose his job by specifying a new rocket for every mission. So SpaceX's task with reusable rockets is to show that their reusables are just as reliable, on the second and subsequent flights, as a brand new rocket. That's a real uphill battle. And there is no guarantee that SpaceX will be able to make the leap to a perception of reliability at a significant cost savings.

Cordwainer said...

Well, Tony in SpaceX's defense I do think they have built a very economical family of launch rockets that will no doubt make a profit in the long run. The issue of whether their fully reusable rocket designs will be able to maintain the right price point and reliability to be profitable is the real issue. It is unfair to Musk and all the engineers and people who have worked on Falcon to say SpaceX is just a rich man's hobby that has yet to translate into a "real" aerospace company is past since it's successful launch of CASSIOPE and later launch of a Thai communications satellite.

Anonymous said...

Tony has a good point about the cost of space missions. Only part of the cost is the launch. If you cut the launch costs by ten, the mission is still hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now where cheap reusable rockets can help is in manned spaceflight. Manned missions require many times the mass of a planetary probe, so launch costs are a bigger slice of the pie.

Ron

Cordwainer said...

I think Ton's point is that the cost of space travel all in all isn't going to come down any time soon since to do so would require massive improvements in multiple areas so just one slice of the pie like launch costs isn't going to make for a revolution. The pace of technology is relatively slow and is limited by the physics of space travel which requires high cost materials and design along with a high degree of quality control.

That being said if one can make cheaper rockets their is no doubt a market for that in both commercial and government sectors of space travel. If you can make something that is as reliable as the competition for less money why wouldn't you buy it.

Thucydides said...

Cord, the issue isn't the high cost materials used to make rockets, but the vast amount of energy needed to achieve orbital velocity.

Leik Myrabo's laser driven "Lightcraft" needed 35 or so GW of energy pumped into the mirror to achieve orbit, which is comperable to the amount of energy developed by large boosters like the Saturn V or Space Shuttle launch stack.

This is perhaps the real issue, since the amount of energy needed to achieve orbit is fixed by the laws of physics, changing the materials you build the rocket out of really only gives you a few percentage points of difference. Rocket technology to get to orbit simply cannot scale the way computer technology does. Look at the difference between a suborbital V@ and the orbital R7 (built with roughly comparable technologies) and you see the difference right away.

The laws of diminishing returns tells us that the last few percent you get from building the entire rocket out of Graphine isn't going to be particularly cost effective (especially when compared to something as crude and brute force as a "Sea Dragon")

Cordwainer said...

Thucydides, I did mention physics as being a limit to "space travel" which was meant to be an umbrella term for both launch technology and the cost of space operations once you get their. A reusable rocket or a cheap dumb mass produced booster design would still have an advantage in cost that people would scramble for even if it is only a small amount of savings. Hell it's the reason why people shop at places like WalMart, Costco and the Dollar Store. If anything I said that any improvement in any area of "space travel" whether it is launch costs, improved propulsion or cheaper space operations is not going to create a revolution in the way we utilize outer space. Slow incremental improvements in all areas probably won't either but will likely occur because technological development rarely stays static. We will probably be stuck with chemical rockets for launch mechanisms for a very long time but there are plenty of areas where we can make minor improvements in those rockets.(many of which have nothing to do with improving their lifting capability) That being said I think there are plenty of areas in the "space operations" milieu that could be improved greatly to either decrease cost or increase capabilities.

Cordwainer said...

As to the law of diminishing returns on chemical rocket technology you mentioned. There are engineering ways around that, one of those you already mentioned is lightcraft. Laser propulsion while not very efficient would be feasible if we had honest to johnny efficient fusion power or dirt cheap high efficiency solar power. Lofstrom Loops would offer some savings if we could get over the engineering and initial cost difficulties. Mass produced dumb boosters and Big Dumb Boosters could be achieved if we had improved automated manufacturing and 3D printing technology. Improvements in fuel synthesis and production cost of structural materials could bring the cost of rockets down as well. For instance cheaper electrical energy or an entirely chemosynthetic process for high grade aluminum could bring the cost of aluminum down. Yes, it is true you can't wring much more out of chemical rocketry in performance but you can wring quite a bit more out of cost with the right set of technologies. We just aren't their yet and probably won't be for sometime.

Cordwainer said...

The debate comes down to whether we have an existing need to develop the technologies mentioned for what we need and do in space. It could be argued we don't need BDB's or Heavy Lift Rockets, but a cheaper booster or reusable booster and air launch capabilities would most likely be useful for the applications we currently use space for.

Thucydides said...

BDB's are conceptually quite cheap, and this has been costed out since the 1960's when TRW did their experiments with scaling up the LEM engine. Reading Astronautix, the BDB idea excited many aerospace companies, who did extensive project studies in the expectation of getting launch contracts.

The prime customer, however, turned out to be uninterested in the concept, but was interested in a reusable launch system that would keep a standing army of NASA employees employed...

Tony's observation about the true costs being in the space system rather than the launch system might have a solution: DARPA's Phoenix program.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/04/darpa-progress-to-enable-assembly-of.html

Thucydides said...

Loftrom loops, skyhooks and other variations of orbital tethers bypass the rocket equation entirely, so the real questions about them (besides engineering feasability and material science) comes down to ROI: is there enough launch business to allow a return on the capital cost of these megastructures?

Cordwainer said...

I think I and others have already discussed robotic repair and modular satellite design. I think Tony's response was that most satellites tend toward a mission specific design and flexibility is cost prohibitive in terms of additional launch costs of repair infrastructure. Also the current NASA and aerospace business models tend to be tied to the idea of getting the right people together to perform a one-off mission rather that servicing a re-usable craft. This has proven cheaper and more pragmatic in a political environment where NASA's budget is constantly being shifted, cut, downsized or refocused at a drop of a hat. In a way NASA is a DIY hobbyist style of project engineering, hope that amuses you Katzen. Re-usable boosters most likely going to cost more than expendables in most scenarios, particularly if your going with a mass-produced dumb booster concept. Where re-usables can be economical is in the first stage which does not require powered landing for recovery. I do wonder at the possibility of a high altitude air launched recoverable rocket with a gliding body for launch of small payloads. I like the Phoenix concept of satlets though very interesting, Thucydides.

Cordwainer said...

As to the ROI of mega-structure launch mechanisms. I tend to think that if somebody were to build one that in itself would encourage the development of new technologies and missions for the exploitation of space. Multi-sail galleons started out for use in the Mediterranean and gave a material advantage in the wars against Ottoman control of those waters. But they also led to Europeans setting out on the Age of Discovery. If we can get somewhere more easily that in itself will lead to people coming up with adequate reasons to go their. Not saying will have a launch a day level of traffic or that it will lead to colonization of space or more manned missions. But there are plenty of scientific missions and commercial applications in space that would benefit from easier space access. The nice thing about mega-structure is they tend to last a long time so you have plenty of time to recoup return on such a project. The other thing about mega-structures is that if you want to get them done they tend to end up becoming government funded civil projects.(examples the Panama and Suez Canals, the U.S. Highway system and the AutoBahn)Governments don't have to be as concerned about return as a private business.

Tony said...

Cord:

I'm being perfectly fair to SpaceX. If they don't find a graceful exit from startup economics into normal commercial economics, they're not going to last the course. But I don't have any doubt that they will. I also don't have any doubt that when they do, they'll have to face the same business issues and challenges as any other launch services provider, and have to access the same solutions.

WRT people wanting to buy cheaper simply because they can, the economic and business context just isn't the same. Launch services aren't a commodity. They're a specialty item. They're competitively bid, but price is only a third priority, behind delivery reliability and dispatch reliability. For cost to be a factor, a launch services provider would have to show industry standard delivery and dispatch reliability, combined with cost reductions (over industry standard) so drastic as to be almost unbelievable. Let's not forget that SpaceX is providing such low prices to a few commercial customers because it has a $3B NASA contract for only twelve flights. IOW, the SpaceX business model is nothing but government subsidies funding a price undercutting strategy in the commercial market. I'll give Elon Musk credit for being a sharp businessman. I won't give him or his organization credit for being great business or technical innovators. There's absolutely zero evidence that they are either.

Thucydides:

We've been over megaproject launch systems before. The bottom line is that there's no business model for them. There's nothing to be done in space that doesn't take expensive equipment and long-term financial and political commitment. Even if you could reduce launch services to a commodity, you wouldn't have a commodity market for it.

WRT modular spacecraft and on-orbit repair, I'm sure that there's a PhD thesis or two in economics in there somewhere. But the thesis subject wouldn't be how to make it work, but why it would fail. Here are a few starters for you:

Modules always come with more chassis overhead, because they have to withstand transportation and docking stresses on their own.

Modules always come with more infrastructure overhead, because they have to support interfaces that might otherwise be disposed of in a fully integrated design.

Modules have relatively limited configuration flexibility, because interfaces have to match those on other modules.

Module power systems, if they are self contained, require that irreducible overhead be reproduced in every module. If they are communal, they require that every module carry within it the capacity to accept and transfer power from other modules, with sufficient capacity to support any modules further away from the community power supply.

I'm sure you can think of more reasons why modules are inefficient.

Thucydides said...

WRT Megastructures, that is exactly the point I was making, would there be enough business to provide an ROI for a megastructure like a launch loop or Skyhook?

DARPA's concerns are not quite the same as yours or mine, but the essential issue that DARPA seems to be looking at is how to keep satellites upgraded and adaptable to changing missions. While not quite like building a "Block xx" version of an existing aircraft or tank, being able to "pull" a module and replace it with a more capable module in orbit might address capability issues for military satellites, and has some potential for commercial satellites in nice roles as well.

Tony said...

I'm not convinced that the drawbacks of modular spacecraft are overcome by any real advantages in flexibility. We have to remember that it takes two or three years to provision a launch. It takes no longer to make a fully functional special-purpose spacecraft, using the current model of a standard chassis with mission-specific instruments and comms. Under those conditions, it makes little sense not to just build a new spacecraft.

If you're thinking in terms of replacing capabilities that fail on-orbit, I'm still not seeing the point. You're locking yourself into an architecture. What if, two or three years down the road, something does fail, and you need to put a replacement capability on-orbit. Do you want to accept an architecture-limited solution, or do you want to put up a replacement that incorporates the latest available technology?

Cordwainer said...

I'm not arguing that SpaceX is doing anything different or novel from a business model position, Tony. They don't have to to be successful. They just have to sell a product that meets the criteria that you pointed out(delivery and dispatch reliability for the right price) I have a feeling they will be able to meet that at least with their expendable launchers and some of their other products, I have my doubts if they will be able to pull that off with their reusable launcher idea. Again, I will restate my original point if you can provide a service or product for the price and reliability then why wouldn't someone buy into it. NASA might have a different political agenda that influences there decision but market forces are still part of that equation. If there is an area of aerospace that can be transformed into a commodity it is the launchers because there are only a few different roles that launchers must fill. Vehicles and satellites for space operations by their nature tend to be too specific and susceptible to changing needs to really be defined as simple commodities they are essentially a form of service overhead.(one doesn't care how the service is performed as long as the service is performed and performed well enough for the right price)


I would also point out that most of the space market is essentially government subsidized. At least where the launchers are concerned is there really anything we can call a "commercial" market in space at least in terms of it being entirely privately funded? Only commercial satellites are mostly funded by private enterprise.

You bring up good points with about the inefficiencies and overhead costs of a module based system. I'm mostly agree with your assessment although I would like to make a few points on the subject, myself.
1. Module design doesn't necessarily have to have limited configurability if you start out with an entirely new fleet of satellites you can design modules that are relatively configurable with each other within that fleet or family. Also, for a commercial satellite you may not need a whole lot of flexibility when it comes to configuring modules. Scientific satellites though would be a different prospect all together.
2. Phoenix Program is looking to develop modules with independent power systems and lots of redundancy as opposed to a communal system.
3. Solutions regarding the support interfaces for module could be achieved by either utilizing on-orbit fabrication of the trusses and interfaces using something like SpiderFab or by sampling sending a mostly empty truss up first and then adding modules with less massive attachment interfaces to a central truss.(like decorating a Christmas tree)The central truss would originally come with propulsion and navigation modules so you wouldn't have to build those redundancies into your "equipment" modules.



Cordwainer said...

Simply not sampling and I not I'm. Typed too fast and I have a broken right index finger. Lot's of other typos but you can probably decipher what I was trying to say.

Cordwainer said...

While I agree a satlet style architecture does essentially lock you into a specific style of architecture which could prove obsolete with the development of new technology. I fail to see how a central chassis with attachment interfaces would necessarily cause the same problem. As long as the attachment interface remains the same you can build the module any size you need to to accommodate technological improvements. Unless we are talking really large antenna's for communications and radio astronomy uses or if somebody develops a really cheap and highly capable micro-sat with a high efficiency propulsion system(a super cubesat) I don't see such a system becoming obsolescent at least for certain applications or roles.

Jim Baerg said...

Cordwainer: "Laser propulsion while not very efficient would be feasible if we had honest to johnny efficient fusion power or dirt cheap high efficiency solar power."

If you want dirt cheap power for whatever, some variety of fission looks more likely. I particularly like the denatured molten salt reactor. See http://terrestrialenergyinc.com/ or a few posts on Next Big Future eg: http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/03/terrestrial-energy-integral-molten-salt.html?spref=bl

Cordwainer said...

I'm particularly fond of dusty-plasma fission fragment reactors if they can ever get the concept to work.

Jim Baerg said...

That dusty-plasma fission fragment reactor sounds good for where high power per unit mass is really important, such as providing on board power for a spaceship. I suspect it would be harder to get high power per dollar of capital cost than other designs. So for laser launching to LEO, use power from a molten salt reactor on the ground.

Anonymous said...

It looks like the Russians will pull out of the ISS in 2020. NASA and its partners want to use the space station until 2024 or 2028, but can't do it without the Russians unless NASA builds a propulsion and control module.

If you want to see the ISS used past 2020, please sign the petition at whitehouse.gov using the link below:

http://wh.gov/lA2zZ

It needs 150 signatures to be listed on the main petition page and 100,000 signatures by 6/14/14 to get a response.

Ron

Tony said...

Don't waste your time. The quicker we're out of ISS, the quicker we can put that money into manned exploration beyond LEO.

Cordwainer said...

Personally, never saw the point in space stations except as a way to study the effects of long term space travel and habitation on humans most things that need to be done in LEO can be done with automated systems or a reusable manned crew vehicle like the Space Shuttle. A Moon Base would be a far better investment.

Tony said...

Moon's been done, as an accomplishment. As a practical environment, it doesn't help you with microgravity research (either physical or physiological), it doesn't prepare you for the Martian surface environment, nor does it prepare you for the surface environment on a NEO. It's simply a dead end if your manned program objectives are interplanetary.

I know that a lot of people younger than 45 or so want to see live what people my age had the privilege of seeing. (Somewhat -- nobody has ever actually seen a Moon landing live, except the men actually there.) Well, just remember that rendezvousing with a NEO would be just as much of a first, and 21st technology will allow us to see it live. Even more so landing on Mars.

Anonymous said...

Tony, "Don't waste your time. The quicker we're out of ISS, the quicker we can put that money into manned exploration beyond LEO."

Ah, only if that was true.

Congress will pull that money from the NASA budget. Note that Congress has demanded the SLS and Orion, but have not funded any payloads that would allow SLS to do any actual exploration.

Without ISS there is no need for commercial crew, killing the fledgling commercial space program. Combine that with no payloads for more than two SLS launches and you got the end of the US manned space program.

Ron

Thucydides said...

Manned space stations provide a relatively safe environment for testing long term systems needed for space exploration (trips to NEO's or Mars, for example). If something goes wrong, you can either hole up in another module or take the lifeoat back to Earth.

Testing and adjusting is also helped by having the factory close at hand, new modules or parts can be flown up as you gain experience and suggest improvements. Rick has suggested in an earlier post that the ISS is essentially an interplanetary spacecraft without an engine.

The biggest waste that *we* seem to have is the willingness to throw away well developed systems for something "new". The SLS is a great example, the system it "replaces" is the 1960 era Saturn V.

Anonymous said...

Throwing away an expensive, productive research labratory because of a political squable, or because it has gone out of fashion with the funding powers just seems silly and petty; moreso, it smacks of countersurvival.

Ferrell

Cordwainer said...

Going to Mars won't accomplish microgravity research either, Tony. I would argue that it does prepare you in some ways for the surface environment of an NEO though.

I think further exploration of the Moon is worthwhile in itself from a scientific point of view what we did with the Apollo program were mere pit stops and a longer term manned mission would yield far more information about are nearest neighbor and would develop much of the technology needed for manned settlement of NEO's and heavy lift long duration space flight if that is your aim.

Personally I think exploration of NEO's and eventual exploitation of there resources though would be far better done via automatons since many of the things we would want to a need to do in researching and resource exploitation of NEO's would be more ably done with very small NEO's that would be pointless to land humans on and not require a very large automated presence to explore/exploit.

Mars and the Moon would benefit more from a manned exploration approach and would be far more hospitable to long term settlement either for scientific research or possibly future economic exploitation. I have made the point that Mars is not very attractive for resource exploitation but it does have neighboring bodies that are attractive for mining and that might benefit from a Mars settlement.

As to the ISS I don't see it as throwing away a valuable test-bed I see it as getting rid of a money-pit that could be replaced with better cheaper manned space habitats tailored more to missions that a space station should be built for, which is continued long term habitability in outer space. Building a facility that is cheaper and that focuses on that main mission along with command and control capabilities for automated missions that are not part of that mission(like space telescope alignment, and gravity probes) would be a better investment.

Cordwainer said...

"our" not "are" excuse my typos I typed that too fast and I haven't had breakfast yet.

Anonymous said...

Interresting take, Cordwainer, I'll have to think about that for a while...I'm not sure if ditching ISS and building new, or if rebuilding ISS is a better way to go. I'll get back to you on that. I do agree with you about manned research outposts on Luna and Mars, however. I think that they would be of great value.

Ferrell

Cordwainer said...

Well, I would point out that originally the U.S. was going to decommission ISS in 2024 anyways.

There is a limit to safe maintenance and shelf life on the ISS modules. If we got rid of the older modules and developed an extensive SLEP program we might be able to extend ISS usability for another 10 years on top of that 2024 date, but the cost might not be worth it.

It's not as if we don't have possibly better options, I really think we should be investing more in Bigelow and SpaceX technologies instead of trying to maintain a lot of these old technologies.

Anonymous said...

Cordwainer, I think that if we built a spacestation to replace the ISS before the ISS is decommissioned, and build it with a specific set of missions, then that might work, but only if a transport and funding 'blueprint' were put in place before its construction. It's like when you have to decide when to stop pouring money into an ol car and buy a new one.

Ferrell

Cordwainer said...

I agree with that I don't think we should pull the plug on the ISS immediately. We should have something else in place as a replacement, beforehand. The ISS still has a great deal of life in it and we should try to get as much shelf life out of it as we can. I would say that we should have a more scaled down cost-effective system though within 5 to 6 years. It might be a good idea to farm that transport and funding blueprint out to private space ventures, in an effort to keep ISS within the scope of NASA and ULA so they don't have to scale down jobs and contracts that are already spoken for too much. It would also be a good experiment to see what is possible with private space ventures and help to generate revenue for them as well.

Cordwainer said...

As for manned exploration outside LEO I'm almost convinced that private funding might be the way to go in the far future. Yes, for now government funding is the most effective way to get into space but that is slowly changing. I think the place for national governments is to subsidize commercial space development with LEO and conduct research outside of LEO with robotic probes. Let private interests that are much better and less affected by political differences perform the manned ventures.

In fact I would say the place for International space cooperation would not be in a space station but in building a reusable launch vehicle like Skylon. Having multiple efforts by nations to build their own space stations would be better than putting our eggs in one basket. While the development of a true space plane would require technological advances and provide mission flexibility and on-demand launch capability that governments, businesses and the public would be loathe to loose. It would sort of be like how jetliners and air travel companies are heavily subsidized by governments around the world even in times of hardship. I mean you don't see Aeroflot stopping flights to New York because of national politics.

Tony said...

Let's see...

1. If Congress isn't going to fund manned spaceflight after ISS, then that's that. When the ISS is retired is a moot point.

2. Commercial Crew only matters WRT ISS to begin with. There's no other destination.

3. What if there was another destination? There won't be. There's no commercial purpose for humans in space. Even tourism just doesn't provide the market.

4. Also, ethically and morally, it just doesn't make sense to risk human lives on the same-old same-old -- not with the current technological capability to send so few people anywhere in space, and the high risk of any attempt to do so. That was the lesson of Columbia. If ISS hadn't existed, it would be morally impossible to justify it. Humans in space are only justifiable if they places "where no man has gone before", to borrow a turn of phrase.

5. Therefore, sending people back to the Moon is morally reprehensible, when further objectives are possible.

6. The argument for LEO as a convenient place to develop systems may have had some force in the past, but perfect is always the enemy of good enough. Whatever we're learning now, after 120 man-years of LEO flight time.

7. Having said that, LEO is still a good place to test flight hardware -- but only examples of flight hardware that is actually going to be used on an exploration mission. The fact that one design works in LEO, says nothing about whether a different one will.

Cordwainer said...

On Tony's points:
1. Agreed
2.Agreed
3.Don't Agree. Presently there is little commercial benefit in other destinations but there is great scientific benefit which could create a commercial benefit to provide the services needed to provide a manned mission. As well as discoveries and technological developments that would make future commercial exploitation of ISRU resources attractive as well. Much of the commercial sector in space is formed exactly around those kinds of things.
4.Ethically and morally a lot of things in life aren't justifiable but we do them. Even from a human safety point of view humans do a lot of foolish things. The real issue is whether the activity is considered or perceived to be worth the cost in blood and treasure.
5. By the logic of the previous point destinations further than the Moon would be even more reprehensible. At least a mission to the Moon would have a greater possibility of survival if such a mission had to be aborted in flight or if a rescue mission had to be launched.
6 and 7. In space fabrication and fuel depoting are technologies that might be usefully developed in LEO that could ultimately benefit manned space flight.

Tony said...

Cordwainer said:

"3.Don't Agree. Presently there is little commercial benefit in other destinations but there is great scientific benefit which could create a commercial benefit to provide the services needed to provide a manned mission. As well as discoveries and technological developments that would make future commercial exploitation of ISRU resources attractive as well. Much of the commercial sector in space is formed exactly around those kinds of things."

What you're missing is that the space industry is right here on the ground. There is no industry in space. There are just end use items. That's not going to change any time soon. And, at the present rate, we're talking about centuries, not decades.

"4.Ethically and morally a lot of things in life aren't justifiable but we do them. Even from a human safety point of view humans do a lot of foolish things. The real issue is whether the activity is considered or perceived to be worth the cost in blood and treasure."

Precisely. The risk must be worth the reward. The economic investment and human risk are simply not justified by recapitulating things that have already been done. The cost and the risk are only justified by pushing forward into new territory.

"5. By the logic of the previous point destinations further than the Moon would be even more reprehensible. At least a mission to the Moon would have a greater possibility of survival if such a mission had to be aborted in flight or if a rescue mission had to be launched."

Precisely backwards. As previously stated, the cost and risk can only be justified by dong more, not less.

"6 and 7. In space fabrication and fuel depoting are technologies that might be usefully developed in LEO that could ultimately benefit manned space flight. "

Fuel depots are only useful in the orbital plane of the spacecraft to be refueled. That means they only make sense as an intermediate step in a specific mission. They are not general resources. On top of that, they require more launches -- and thus more cost and risk -- than launching larger vehicles.

The same logic applies to construction in space, with the added risk of EVAs. Once again, if one can launch spacecraft as dockable modules -- and obviously we can -- construction in space is another morally and ethically questionable idea.

Cordwainer said...

3. True, enough their is no industry in space yet and probably won't be for a long while which leaves us with playing a futures game with a very high risk of return and long prospected time of return. Which means investment toward such projects will likely be relatively low. That doesn't mean that companies and entrepeneurs who already have skin in the game in those on the ground aerospace industries or who happen to be dreamers like Elon Musk won't get involved if we have a mandate to really do more as you point out.

5. I don't think of the Moon as the dull place that you do, or as necessarily doing less if we are willing to do a Moon mission that is much larger in scope than previous attempts. That being said a Mars mission would capture the general public's attention better.

6 and 7: For in-space construction using autonomous system as well as dockable stages(which wouldn't be necessary for some applications) I think the commercial benefits within just the context of what can be done in LEO would be worth the risk. As for fuel depots I would suggest that you look at the Reusable earth departure stages forum on nasaspaceflight it has some interesting links on the subject, whether they are very practical from a cost-effective analysis is debatable.

Tony said...

Cordwainer:

"3. True, enough their is no industry in space yet and probably won't be for a long while... That doesn't mean that companies and entrepeneurs who already have skin in the game in those on the ground aerospace industries or who happen to be dreamers like Elon Musk won't get involved if we have a mandate to really do more as you point out."

The "mandate", as you put it, isn't to do more quantitatively, but to do more qualitatively. IOW, not to bulk up on LEO or Lunar, but to extend the reach of manned spaceflight further out into the solar system.

"5. I don't think of the Moon as the dull place that you do, or as necessarily doing less if we are willing to do a Moon mission that is much larger in scope than previous attempts. That being said a Mars mission would capture the general public's attention better."

Nobody ever said the Moon was a dull place. But it is a done place, WRT putting humans in new environments. As long as we can only afford one or two exploration missions per year, the focus should be on actually exploring new places, not expanding old explorations.

"6 and 7: For in-space construction using autonomous system as well as dockable stages(which wouldn't be necessary for some applications) I think the commercial benefits within just the context of what can be done in LEO would be worth the risk."

Not really anything to do in LEO with people. Automation and miniaturization obviated the need for humans there.

"As for fuel depots I would suggest that you look at the Reusable earth departure stages forum on nasaspaceflight it has some interesting links on the subject, whether they are very practical from a cost-effective analysis is debatable."

The focus in all of these maunderings seems to be on the technical aspects of hardware reusability without any conception of total program cost, actual utility in realistic operations, or overall system reliability. The real killer to all such schemes is the limited utility of propellant depots, sue to orbital mechanics. If your depot is for a lunar mission, it has to be in one orbital plane -- and is only useful once a month, and only for a very limited selection of trajectories. If it is for a Mars departure, it has to be in a different one -- and you can only use it once every 26 months; i.e. for only a single mission, given realistic hardware reliability. The reality is that as long as you're going with chemical rockets, expendable stages (made dockable, for multiple launch missions) really make the most sense.

Geoffrey S H said...

@Tony: "Nobody ever said the Moon was a dull place. But it is a done place, WRT putting humans in new environments. As long as we can only afford one or two exploration missions per year, the focus should be on actually exploring new places, not expanding old explorations."

Taken to its logical conclusion, once every planet in the solar system is 'done' (5 or so missions each) and all the asteroids we want to visit and other solar bodies are 'done', there will be no more missions. So, about a century and a half of missions before interest (and therefore the budget) dries up for ever.

Cordwainer said...

Except the Moon isn't it a done place there is so much we don't know about it's formation, composition and the indications of possible resources like water and helium3.

Similarly, we have had numerous probes and missions sent to Mars and only scratched the surface in regards to what we know about the Red Planet. Hell, there is so much we don't even know about the planet we live on.

It would be a sad conclusion to mankind's efforts in space if we do five manned missions to each of the major planets and then quit. Maybe that is all we can hope for politically and economically but it seems like such a dour view of things.

Tony said...

Guys...please go back and reread what I wrote. The context is not interest -- and certainly not sentiment. The context is what is morally and ethically justifiable at the current time, under our current constraints. Maybe the future a few decades from now will be different. Maybe it won't be. But that's not up to us or what we might want if we had our druthers. Humans in space represent a unique and valuable resource. Right now it's just too expensive and too risky to send people back to where they've already been, when there are still new things to be done with that resource.

Geoffrey S H said...

"Right now it's just too expensive and too risky to send people back to where they've already been, when there are still new things to be done with that resource."

In the next century it will stay that way. If rocket technology does not improve then it will probably stay that way. factor in the distance between planets and the number of missions might be less than 5, as the state is responsible for the astronauts sent there rather than going on their own funding like Scott of the Antarctic. Why should any government gamble with their lives for meagre scientific gain?

Personally I think funding will get less, due to increased funding requirements for health and education both in the west and elsewhere. While I would be sad to see space exploration decline (both robotic and human), in the wider context of improved living conditions I can't mourn its passing.

I do hope that didn't come across as political. If so I apologise.

Cordwainer said...

That is a valid point Geoffrey but I would point out that space travel is a relatively small part of the budget. Cultural zeitgeist would seem to suggest that funding and interest in space will dwindle in the next few decades, like that line in the movie "Interstellar" the world doesn't need engineers it needs farmers.

As to rocket technology advancing in the near future that depends on what type of advancement we are discussing. Cheaper methods for assembly and some degree of reusability will no doubt be developed. Increases to performance are unlikely and would be minimal though.

Where I have hope is in the development of new launch methods. I think air-launch like SpaceShip Two and Three, air-breathing rockets like Skylon and electromagnetic launch systems like Lofstrom Loop have some promise if they get properly funded. I also think if we develop advancements in in-space fabrication technologies like SpiderFab and are able to build a cheap launch mechanism for boosting feedstock for said in-space fabrication systems we could lower the cost of space operations significantly.

Thucydides said...

This is a sort of chicken and egg argument.

Columbus did not have capable sea going ships because he wanted to go across the Western Ocean to China, he had capable sea going ships because there was a market for them to carry cargo across the Bay of Biscay, up the English Channel and into the North and Baltic seas, where buyers and sellers for various goods awaited.

The ships evolved from much simpler ships with smaller cargo holds and much less sea going capability, but which were built for similar purposes.

While it is possible with current day technology to build ISS like structures and strap rocket engines to the back for trips to Mars, NEOs or perhaps the Asteroid belt, the reason that no one has done so is that there is literally no reason to do so; or more precisely no reason that anyone is willing to pay for.

You could test this out by pricing the costs of assembling the hardware, launching it on SpaceX rockets to keep the costs down etc and than putting it on Kickstarter to raise the money...

I know you will raise lots of money, but in the end, you won't be getting the billions that you need to launch and fly space worthy hardware and actually fly to Mars.

So until there is some viable reason to actually go "out there", I doubt there will ever be enough R&D to make the capable spacecraft needed to get there in the first place. What makes this a hard argument to take for dreamers like myself is it means that the relatively easy places to go to are already known not to have much commercial promise, so if there is Mcguffinite it must be far beyond what *we* have considered to be the first destinations; not Mars but rather beyond the orbit of Neptune and in the Kruiper belt or the Oort cloud. Talk about a stretch....

Katzen said...

back again! It's been awhile since I have been on here and my days are once again filled with sun, grease and hydraulic fluid.

anyway I want to add a spark of optimism, maybe it's because I want to play devil's advocate or maybe it's because I grew up watching the x prize, spacex, bigelow aerospace and a number of other small and large players in the aerospace field come around and actually be taken seriously.

it's also the fact that I grew up hearing stories from my father who an old engineer saw the space race when he was my age.

I keep thinking that it's going to be something that we know of that we can find. Resources, knowledge, testing, tourism, or just plain entertainment.

none of these can be discounted, but honestly we haven't done much more than take a look with large telescopes and send a few probes to check.

There is a huge amount that we still don't know about our own planet, how can any of us expect to know what we will find on other planets?

the environment outside of earth and earth orbit could contain all manner of things not found here. we might find some oddly composed ore, alloy or compound we haven't seen especially when it's made with a mixture of radiation and zero gravity.

this is the best I can think of what will happen.
a. there is a glut of launch capability
b. there is a glut of launches with only a few making money
c. market crash as most new ventures go belly up
d. the few that don't will start making money as they absorb and build and start a new round of investment and exploration
e. a stable fast growing market that will fill with players.

that is my best bet with space exploration for the next century.

Tony said...

Katzen,

None of the things you suggest are at all likely, ever. Physical laws work the same way everywhere in the universe. We don't need more than telescopes and a few probes to see whether resources exist in some place in the solar system. For example, you do realize that the most recent probes to land on Mars didn't discover the historical and current presence of water on the planet -- they simply confirmed what we could already figure from observations going back to the very simple reconnaissance probes of Sixties and Seventies. Like wise, discovering rings at Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus, or even discovering sulfur volcanoes on Io, just told us more about what we already knew about physics. None of it introduced us to new materials or fundamental processes. It's really been a case, over and over, of, "That's interesting...let's see if we can figure out how that works." And we've always been able to develop plausible explanations from what we already know about physics, gravity, geology, etc.

Simply put, if you're waiting on the magic bullet, I'll see you at the End of the Universe(tm), and we'll discuss your progress.

As for the rest of it, the glut of launch capability already happened and the launch services market has already shaken out. That happened between 1995 and 2005. Guess what? Space launch is still relatively rare and still costs a lot of money. The market is not fast-growing and there are still only a few major players. There are very good economic and engineering reasons for that.

Cordwainer said...

Well Thucydides, I agree that we don't have a real and present need to build technologies capable of deep space flight I do think we have already developed sufficient architecture for the exploration of our own Moon and NEO's. Further developments for launch to and operations within LEO could further advance the systems and infrastructure for visiting those nearest neighbors I just mentioned.

I also wouldn't entirely write off our nearest neighbors as a source of McGuffinite. We cannot entirely be sure of what the future may hold in terms of demand for resources or services that may be extracted from the use of space.

We could see an increased need for operations in LEO due to increased accessibility to satellite communications and other space based services from the developing world. Advances in emerging technologies or over use of rare and hard to recycle resources here on Earth could lead to greater interest in exploiting those resources from our nearest neighbors.

Of course that would limit human utilization and exploration of space resources from an entirely profit driven model to LEO, the Moon and NEO's and the majority of those missions would likely be unmanned. On the other hand the exploration of space has never been entirely motivated by profit there are political and cultural motivations as well so I would not entirely count out a government funded mission to Mars, but I think it is unlikely that without consistent long term international cooperation that such a mission will be successful. Which makes the premise rather unlikely since getting governments to cooperate consistently over a long period of time while not impossible is difficult.

Cordwainer said...

meant to say, "government funded manned mission to Mars"(edit)

Thucydides said...

Rethinking my last post a bit.

The issue really isn't the spacecraft itself, we can build an ISS like platform as the basis of the ship using present day technology. The issue is what do we strap on the back end to get from point A to point B?

NTR was a mature technology back in the 1970's, with the final versions of NERVA being considered flight ready, but the "N" in NTR will arouse a great deal of public and political backlash.

Indeed, to power any sort of viable next generation system (ion, VASMIR, dusty fragment plasma, mass driver, etc.) requires a high energy density power supply. Anything with nuclear on the label will attract a lot of negative attention, and not receive backing or sanction from the political authorities on Earth.

Solar arrays have issues of mass, plus the mechanical problems of pointing arrays to the sun and bending and flexing of both the array and the spacecraft.

Even beamed power suffers from negative connotations. Any system capable of pointing and tracking a ship near Mars or a NEO and delivering a viable amount of energy is military grade hardware, and quite capable of frying any satellite in LEO or GEO, burning any launch vehicle within its horizon and generally threatening all space activities and possibly even targets on Earth. Just because the current management isn't into military applications does not mean future owners or managers won't change their minds...

The only viable alternative would be some form of unconventional fusion reactor, such as Polywell, Dense Focus Fusion, MTR, Muon Catalytic Fusion or other exotica (none of which has been proven viable yet).

So we may end up being stuck in LEO and Cis Lunar space for a long time yet...

Cordwainer said...

MSNWR Liner fusion and Mini-Mag Orion style propulsion systems seem doable in the near term and would be well with power limits of modern solar panel arrays. You would need a vehicle structurally stronger than current engineering used to build the ISS though.

VASIMR or HiPEP Ion thrusters strapped to the current ISS with the appropriate power plant and structural reinforcement could put the ISS in a cycler orbit between an EML point and the Moon.

Katzen said...

tony

I actually do doubt we have discovered everything. The thing is there are still things coming out of left field. Not in basic physics but rather discoveries on how to use them.

Take graphene, metamaterials, or memresistors. it was only ten years ago the smartphone went mainstream. Biology has also made leaps and bound the last few decades. It took a massive project and millions of dollars and many years.

I know that many of those are in the R&D phase, but they have been built now where before there was "we have no clue how to make it" despite physics saying we can.

I doubt space is the "next thing" but I hope it is, and when something comes out of left field it will probably be explained by today's physics.

I think I will write Sci-Fi stories like that.

also who here likes mecha?

jollyreaper said...

I like mecha but they are a what I call a case of special pleading, like manned starfighters and lightsabers in a universe filled with blasters: you really have to take great pains to justify them and we all know it's really unlikely.

The basic criticisms are tall objects are big targets, a humanoid form is harder to armor than a box, any power plant and weapon combination that's deadly on a mecha will be just as effective and better armored on a tank chassis, human pilots can't handle the g-loads shown in mecha anime without gravity manipulation, etc. By the time we solve all the tech issues to make a mech, we would probably have decent enough AI to make them automated in the first place. And then you have the question of proper scale: battleships vs torpedo boats. Or in this case, why build a giant mecha when a swarm of missile drones could hit just as hard? Answering that question will probably fall into special pleading.

When the assumptions behind the story are reasonable and doesn't require a great suspension of disbelief, you're not really talking about special pleading. The desirability of humanoid androids that lack human rights is a decent enough premise for a story. That they are stronger and faster than humans and are indistinguishable to the point where blood tests can't tell them apart violates basic biology. That the manufacturers didn't even put tattoos or other distinguishing marks on them is a ridiculous level of special pleading to allow for blade runners. You could work around that pleading by saying the models were illegally manufactured for the express use of a government bypassing all the usual safeguards for complete deniability and you are back into a reasonable premise for why they are out there, they escaped. And there's no blade runner unit out there because this has never happened before. And these weapons are designed to pass as human from any casual observation, even superficial DNA samples check our as normal. Only a dissection would nail them as replicant. Cool. That's a great premise and holds up. It's the Chernobyl justification where there were safety devices and procedures in place to prevent what happened and they aren't effective when operators deliberately bypass them.

Geoffrey S H said...

A small mecha that can step over rubble would serve as an exemplary 'armoured car' to provide heavy support to troops in urban and (crucially) mountainous environments. Armour the bits that can be armoured, and the handwave the legs/arms as plug in bits that are light enough for troops to carry and therefore have replacements. Or make it so cheap that it could provide temporary and vital support in a vicious cityfight, but when destroyed one just needs to call for another.

Missile drones are a nice idea, but only if carried to the battlefield by a larger craft. If their role is to zip around unloading smaller missiles on hapless targets, by the time they got there under their own power, doing anything except slamming themselves into the target (making them missiles) would be difficult.

Jim Baerg said...

Tony said MAY 29, 2014 AT 4:32 AM: "The real killer to all such schemes is the limited utility of propellant depots, due to orbital mechanics. If your depot is for a lunar mission, it has to be in one orbital plane -- and is only useful once a month, and only for a very limited selection of trajectories. If it is for a Mars departure, it has to be in a different one -- and you can only use it once every 26 months"

Actually for the moon if your depot is in an arbitrary incliniation it would be useful twice a month, the two times the moon crosses the plane of the orbit of the depot. If the plane of the orbit of the depot is the same as the moon's orbital plane then you have a launch window from the depot to the moon roughly every 90 minutes. However, the plane of the moon's orbit precesses & getting the depot's plane to precess at the same rate may not be doable.

There is something that makes a fuel depot in LEO for a LEO to moon shuttle not worth doing. Ie: that if you can make rocket fuel from material on the moon it takes less delta V to get from the moon to LEO than from the earth's surface, especially if you aerobrake into LEO. So you tank up on the moon with enough fuel to go both ways.

Thucydides: "Anything with nuclear on the label will attract a lot of negative attention, and not receive backing or sanction from the political authorities on Earth."

Either we build lots of nuclear for powering earth bound civilization over the next few decades or we trash the planet & our civilization. I think in a few decades the antinuclear crowd will have the contempt they deserve.

Changing the subject to other solar systems that would encourage space travel. See this post http://crowlspace.com/?p=1913 which links to a series about how many habitable planets could be crowded into one solar system.

One of those posts links to this abstract http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787L...2Y

"Planetary rotation rate is a key parameter in determining atmospheric circulation and hence the spatial pattern of clouds. Since clouds can exert a dominant control on planetary radiation balance, rotation rate could be critical for determining the mean planetary climate. Here we investigate this idea using a three-dimensional general circulation model with a sophisticated cloud scheme. We find that slowly rotating planets (like Venus) can maintain an Earth-like climate at nearly twice the stellar flux as rapidly rotating planets (like Earth). This suggests that many exoplanets previously believed to be too hot may actually be habitable, depending on their rotation rate. The explanation for this behavior is that slowly rotating planets have a weak Coriolis force and long daytime illumination, which promotes strong convergence and convection in the substellar region. This produces a large area of optically thick clouds, which greatly increases the planetary albedo. In contrast, on rapidly rotating planets a much narrower belt of clouds form in the deep tropics, leading to a relatively low albedo. A particularly striking example of the importance of rotation rate suggested by our simulations is that a planet with modern Earth's atmosphere, in Venus' orbit, and with modern Venus' (slow) rotation rate would be habitable. This would imply that if Venus went through a runaway greenhouse, it had a higher rotation rate at that time."

Cordwainer said...

So we are onto Pacific Rim now, I hated that movie so unrealistic and lacking in special pleading plus a plot right out a bad 80's style sci-fi. Robotics;Notes at least showed how difficult the physics and technological difficulties you would have in developing a useful Mecha.

The best design for a real-world mecha I've seen in anime or movies so far I think were the High Agility Versatile Weapon Carriers from the Flag anime, mainly because they could transform between a bipedal mecha to a wheeled armored vehicle with a lower center of gravity and high mobility.

That being said mecha would fit well with some sort of cyberpunk or fantasy setting reversioning of Greek Myths. The Trojan Horse could be a "special" mecha designed as a peace offering, the various monsters of Greek mythology could be robots and the heroes could suit up in exoskeletons instead of armor.

jollyreaper said...

I don't know if anyone has actually created different definitions for scales of robot armor. I have my own distinctions. A suit you wear, an armor you sit in. A suit without armor that just boosts strength would be an exoskeleton.

A power suit is like iron man armor, fitting the human form perfectly.

Power armor is like starship troopers where the arms and limbs of the user are still in the armor's limbs but it is bulkier and heavier.

The next scale up from power armor is the aliens power loader. The crap mecha from matrix iii have the same form. Human in the chest, limbs might descend partially into legs, arms remain in chest and the armor's arms swing out with a great sweep. People could argue whether this is a big suit or a small mech.

The power loader size is the biggest I could see a practical mech used for and likely not for combat but as with the power loader, a utility vehicle.

Bigger than that, most pilots are still sitting in the chest but no limbs are in the limbs of the mech. That's where I start counting it as a mech rather than suit or armor. Bigger yet and they want to put the pilot in the head. The common scales seem to be 20, 50 and 100 feet tall. Most mecha shows like to stick around 50. I believe most battlemechs topped out in that range.

Katzen said...

Cordwainer

I... really think that would be a awesome show. A space opera version of homer's odyssey ( not to be confused with 2001 space odyssey) filled with mecha, robots, and all sorts of cyberpunk, and rocket punk. More fantasy than sci-fi but still quite awesome.

Actually that mecha comment was brought on by a (very) slow night in the hangar.
Someone put on Pacific Rim and now all of us aircraft mechanics of one sort or another joked that there is probably a chief mechanic crying in some corner after every battle knowing he/she has a very thorough inspection and overhaul that will cost them more sleep than they can handle.

That got me thinking "it's always the pilots, but what if you showed a slice of life kind of story from the overworked mechanics perspective that have to keep themselves from burning out while the normally angst filled protagonist has his/her temper tantrum?"

so has started a story buzzing in my head. Which it will probably stay right now. Work when I'm not busy turning wrenches I'm studying.

Cordwainer said...

I tend to agree that something like the power loader or "labors" from Patlabor would probably be the maximum size you that would be useful and then mainly for utilitarian uses. Although some of the mechs from Patlabor were overbuilt and oversized they did do a good job with special pleading in that their mechs started out for use in construction and other heavy machinery type tasks and slowly evolved into police and military uses due to their misuse by criminals and terrorists.

I think maximum size for a mech would probably be somewhere around 15 to 20 feet high and most likely they would have a tracked, wheeled or multi-limbed undercarriage to provide proper mobility and structural support.

Taller mechs would be difficult to move easily from one job site to the next because even if you flat load the mech it would have to be almost as half as wide as it is tall to support it's height.

In some ways a mech or powerloader would have advantages over an exoskeleton or powered suit. One, as mentioned before it could have a wheeled or tracked undercarriage or be transformable between a bipedal walker and road worthy automotive machine. Two, if damaged it would be much easier to escape from than a close fitting suit of armor ran by servomotors.

I think the best use and most likely development for powered exoskeletons would be easily removable load carrier leg units like what the army is developing to assist soldiers with heavy loads but more lightweight and streamlined sort of like the HUG units in Robotic Notes for paraplegics.

Artificial arms that hug to the body would really not be all that useful for a quadriplegic you might be better off developing something like Doc Ocs robotic arms from comic books since they might be lighter and probably less likely to cause injury to the patient and provide a better weight distribution due to the fact they could be attached lower to the bodies center of balance.

Also combining artificial legs with artificial arms would be require lots of weight and volume reduction of the mechanical elements. You could do it but the resulting suit might be too big to provide sufficient mobility in confined spaces. Better of for a quadriplegic to have artificial arms attached to a powered wheelchair to optimize weight distribution and mobility.



Cordwainer said...

Since they already have artificial arms for amputees I suppose you could go with a double armed humaniform armed rig that would attach to an adjustable shoulder harness and ride outside of the quadriplegics or birth defected individuals arms or by adjusted more closely for someone with loss of an arm or arms from amputation. An adjustable modular artificial harness where different arms can be removed or replaced with different powered prosthesis would be the best solution for arm related issues.

A single functional load bearing device that supports and rides outside of the legs would be best for amputees and paraplegics since many amputees suffer from problems with the fit of a specifically designed prosthesis. Exo-skeletal legs would provide the necessary support to other prosthesis as well as a healthier and more normal positioning and movement of the limbs during locomotion.

Thucydides said...

Some sidebars:

Superstrong materials which are almost 99% air are becoming possible. the essential idea here is to use ordinary materials formed into ultra tiny structural elements like trusses (which can be repeated at multiple scales). http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/nanotruss-for-super-lightweight-and.html

Reducing mass this way will have all kinds of applications, and of course spacecraft with radically reduced mass need less energy for changes in deltaV needed to get around in space.

The idea of Mecha goes against current trends in warfare: insurgent forces which disperse and hide in the civil environment. Since Mecha stand out even more than uniformed military personnel, they become easy targets for insurgents wielding RPG's, IEDs and suicide bombs. This also applies to other things like "smart" weapons; it may be more practical to hide the launcher in a commercial cargo truck (you download target information from your smartphone just before launch) rather than a F-35.

I have heard "Pacific Rim" described as the supidest awesome movie ever, or the awesomest stupid movie...No doubt we will see endless sequels and a TV series.

Cordwainer said...

Armored vehicles and helicopters are also targets for the same attacks you describe but they are quite well suited for delivering troops and heavy artillery to where they are needed. I'm not entirely sure a transformable mech capable of switching between an armored vehicle for urban environments and a walker for mountainous terrain and difficult crossings might not be of some use. It all depends on how well armored and structurally sturdy you can make the mech without sacrificing performance and agility.

I was under the impression most aerogels and other ultra-lightweight materials tend to be either too brittle or lack the tensile strength and memory retention to be used as structural trusses generally. While excellent for heat shielding and fuselage cladding they probably would require carbon fiber composites to support them structurally.

Thucydides said...

Armoured vehicles are also not 100' tall... ;)

While there is plenty of discussion about how future military forces will be organized, the general consensus seems to be a model of SoF troops supported by a cloud of "enablers" who provide actionable intelligence and targeting information.

We see something like this in Ukraine today, as Russian Spetsnaz troops slip into Eastern Ukraine and either on their own or supporting local separatist groups attack a police station here, assassinate a mayor there, capture a communication node; each individual action is calibrated so it does not provoke a large response but collectively it destabilized the civil society and government control over the territory. (Obviously not every unit or group is as adept at slipping under the radar, and the Ukrainian government has found targets which are capable of being attacked by conventional forces, but the general principles are clear).

In these scenarios, heavy armour and even helicopter gunships are only occasionally useful. The military forces best used to respond to these sorts of provocations might resemble a constabulary rather than the Marines, with individual soldiers acting almost as "beat cops" with intimate knowledge of the local environment and people. How a 20 year old private from Nova Scotia or Texas will be able to deploy to (say) Africa and do this successfully is an interesting question to contemplate.

Bringing the discussion back to the beginning; Odysseus was certainly a master of this kind of warfare, being able to both inspire and manipulate his own forces through careful wordsmithing, and also entering Troy on several occasions as a diplomat, a spy and to carry out a commando raid (attempting to steal a cult statute from a Trojan temple).

jollyreaper said...

I suppose that the pendulum will swing back and forth as to when insurgencies or total war are a better option, same as when offense or defense is the stronger option. Castle walls were pretty damned effective until cannon came along. Heavy calvary was tops for what, 800 years?

All of this does not occur in the abstract. Wars aren't just about what you can smash but what you hope to gain. If the other guy has a pile of gold, he's dead it's yours. If he's got the machines and resources and his cooperation is needed to get anything of value, then war probably isn't the best way to convince him.

I still find it fascinating how the Brits failed at colonialism and the Americans won. We have the third world making all our stuff and we don't have to have a gigantic foreign service to make it happen. Of course, a disgustingly bloated military is a pretty big stick at that.

It all seems to come down to making the other guy do something you can't otherwise reason him into peaceably. Nobody seems to be happy with offering a fair deal.

I always thought it would be funny if a classic empire builder offered a franchise model instead. Here's how it works. You become a franchisee of the empire. You pay us 15% of your production and you gain access to empire culture and markets and courts. Our forces will protect you and your traders. You get our standard weights and measures. You have total local autonomy because we don't care how you live or what you believe. You do lose the right to attack other franchisees. We are all on the same team now. You also get to send delegates to the imperial city based on this formula and can vote in policy decisions. Any imperial matters are decided in imperial courts. Local matters are for local courts and authorities. As a signing bonus, you will likely get double your contributions back in imperial support in addition to your economic improvements.

That's not how it works in the real world. Empire is about wealth pumps, sucking value from tributary territories to inflate the standard of living in the capital territory. It's not about win-win, it's about gimme your crap and I don't break your fade.

Cordwainer said...

I wasn't talking about 100 foot tall mechs, I was talking something the size of large tank or power loader, and I was making the case that they would be highly task specific.

I would point out Thucydides that armor, artillery and air power still largely dominate in most scenarios when you are trying to permanently conquer and defend towns and cities.

You can conquer cities with SoF troops but you can't keep them against a determined and well supplied resistance. You need armored transport, air reconnaissance, and heavy pinpoint artillery for that. Your constabulary is going to end up looking more like a regular army in any real war zone. Also with modern communications, miniaturized personal electronic devices and real-time event tracking where every soldier is a sensor a lot of your "enablers" will actually be on or near the front line, not in a trailer surrounded by computer screens.

That being said we have already seen the future of modern warfare with the development of armed drones, hand held anti-armor weaponry, lightweight artillery guns, self-propelled guns and lighter and faster armored vehicles. As these technologies and there use becomes more developed and available the strategies of irregular militias we see in the Ukraine and Iraq currently will become less effective as modern militaries develop their own strategies to defend against them and turn the tide of battle in their favor.

Also, the best "beat cops" are usually the locals themselves. Which brings up jollyreaper's post
regarding the franchisement of empire. One could make the argument that many empires actually do start out that way. The Roman and Carthaginian Empires started out this way in many respects. The British Empire used a franchise method in conquering Northern India and the East Indies. The Cold War was essentially a war between client states of the West and East.

Also one can make the case that
Empire is as much about a perceived cultural need to exert political dominance due to ideologies supporting cultural superiority as well as a real or perceived need to expand the population outside of ones current boundaries or defend populations disenfranchised from their main polity by current national borders. Empires that are only concerned with wealth pumps and gathering tend to lose money and for the most part empire itself is often a lose-lose proposition for many nations in the long run. The Empires that are most successful do utilize the franchise method to spread their culture and laws to all the citizens of their empire and they develop the infrastructure of their client states to protect and encourage trade and commerce which unlike direct tribute is where the real money is.

Thucydides said...

A great book to read about the rise of Western "Maritime" culture and how it came to dominate the world is "God and Gold", by Walter Russell Mead.

Britain was actually quite good at the "colonial" game because alone of all the colonial powers they made a serious effort to build institutions in their colonies, and made at least some effort to bring aboard the local elites and train them in the "British" way of doing things. The modern concept of the "Anglosphere" of nations sharing language, cultures and institutions is derived from the legacy of British colonialism.

The particular genius of the Americans was to recognize that there was no need to actually station Proconsuls or Viceroys abroad, rather they created a series of transnational and international organizations and standards which were more advantageous to join than to oppose. As an added carrot, the US Navy would serve to keep the sea lanes open for trade at no additional cost to anyone else (and freeing most of the world from having to pay the huge costs associated with running a globe spanning naval power).

In a contrafactual universe, if the USSR had collapsed under the onslaught of Nazi Germany prior to an exhausted Germany being defeated by the Allied powers, the US military would have rapidly shrunk much as it did after every other major war (and indeed there was a huge demobilization immediately after the Second World War; the massive build up of the Cold War era really started with the Korean War). The large military establishment owes much to the USSR and bureaucratic inertia.

Cordwainer said...

One cheap solution I could see being used in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant would be marrying light and medium artillery pieces with a mobile delivery system by air and ground along with cheap reconnaissance drones for real-time targeting.

Thucydides said...

ISIS would actually love your solution because you would be shelling mosques, hospitals, schools and civilian neighbourhoods to get them. The media fallout alone would stop the expeditionary force in its tracks (which is the intent).

The way things are going right now, American inaction may provide an inadvertent solution: the Iranians will not tolerate "apostates" like ISIS running things on the ground and threatening their hegemonic designs on Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Let the Iranians expend blood and treasure fighting ISIS either directly with their own forces or indirectly with their proxies like Hezbollah. The West can sit back, put on some popcorn and use their maritime power to throw a cordon around the region to limit the "spillover".

jollyreaper said...

Allegedly the cordon-and-wait approach is what was taken in Syria. We don't like any of the combatants and will take steps to maintain an agreeable balance of power as they batter themselves to pieces. But it sounds like Assad is winning by this point. I hate to think what the fallout of this will be. Arming the Mujahideen to fight the Ruskies in Afghanistan had blowback we couldn't even begin to calculate.

Geoffrey S H said...

Possible food for thought regarding colonisation. If we colonised our local star cluster as the slowest pace possible, might it look a bit like this, only stretched over millions of years?

Geoffrey S H said...

Sorry, forgot to provide the like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations

Cordwainer said...

Providing materiel support in weapons and tactics isn't any different than what other nations within the Middle East or global community do already and the U.S. is already pretty well embroiled in the conflict. Giving the Shiites and Kurds weapons and training to defend themselves is not to the same as the U.S. putting troops on the ground or performing air strikes against the same targets you cite Thucydides.

I think the consensus of most Middle Eastern nations is that ISIL is a criminal and dangerous pseudo-state that threatens the current balance of power. I don't think any action or inaction on our part is going to make America any less or more popular in the Middle East.

I am not fond of Maliki's government and I have always thought Iraq should have been split into three countries since it was always a no-man's land between the Persian and Ottoman Empires. But for us to not appear as colonialist and supportive of the people of Iraq we were obliged to support the State of Iraq in it's entirety.

That being said ISIL is a dangerous radical group that must be dealt with quickly and efficiently lest they become even more of a threat. If that means cooperating with Iran then so be it, but we should also support Kurdish forces as well to keep an even playground in case the situation does result in the dissolution of Iraq as a state.

Plus I would point out that artillery mortars are quite common in Iraq and similar tactics were used to good effect during the Iraq-Iran War. I am quite willing to let the different sides fight it out in their private little war but that doesn't mean we can't put a little money down on who we want to win.

Cordwainer said...

I think human expansion within in our local star cluster would look more like the wanderings of Malayo-Polynesian people that we see in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. With our own solar system having the largest population density and then our closest stellar neighbors being similar to Indonesia, Borneo, New Guinea, the Philippines and Moluccas having relatively high population densities and a more varied genetic and cultural identity due to multiple waves of colonization.

Further out and you end up with only the most ardent of explorers seeking fortune in some alien star system so these stellar systems would have far less genetic or cultural variation and might be settled by only one or two main groups sort of like the Islands of the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

If we ever run into aliens if might our colonies might look like Madagascar where you have a Austronesian majority and an East African minority living and trading alongside our human communities but in turn have their own interstellar diaspora of colonization of which we have contact with only on the periphery.

Geoffrey S H said...

Take that kind of setting, and make it happen over millions of years and you could have quite a story!

As for the middle east, I'm wondering if we should just leave the place alone completely. Guard against terror attacks from the region perhaps but otherwise just ignore the place. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, but if oil reserves are found elsewhere then just leave the place to collapse into civil war. There's too much casual violence there to be suppressed, and what have we acheived so far?

jollyreaper said...

Concerning the whole SpaceX vs. launch establishment argument, we've got two different arguments.

Argument 1: the x'ers are acting like 20-somethings who have learned just enough to think they know everything but haven't yet run into the limits set by reality. So they're all about "Well, why can't we do this?" Given time, they'll sigh and say "Ok, so this is why we have to settle for that."

Argument 2: Big corporations aren't in the business of innovating. Look at a Comcast cable box vs. a Roku box. Comcast is heavily invested in the cable infrastructure. They have no interest in ruining their business model. They like commercials, they like premium channels, they like the way things are. Why fix what ain't broke? Roku says hey, we're a young and scrappy company, let's find a niche. A Roku box and a netflix subscription works better than anything you can get from cable. Just look at the interface choices between what cable offers for screen guides, on-demand, etc vs. Roku. Look at how the Roku box remains cool to the touch while the cable box is burning hot. The upstart is struggling to secure market share and the monopoly is strenuously struggling to maintain it. Disruptive game changers and new technology gives the upstart the advantage while the monopoly is threatened by these things. Let the upstart become the monopoly and goals will change.

Look at the publishing industry and the big changes coming with digital distribution. Amazon is a young company with the founder still firmly in charge. He's setting the agenda and driving it hard. We'll see how they look after he's dead and they've had a succession of corporate types running the place. But the point I'm making is Amazon was already an 800lb gorilla before it got into digital distribution and really put its shoulder into opening that market. The old players had their chance to establish standards and channels and did so poorly. They conceded the lead and Amazon is calling the shots for better or worse, some of it the worst.

And if we're still talking about Musk, it looks like he's bulling his way into establishing all the standards for electric cars. Open sourcing the patents looks like it could be a masterstroke, an intentional repeat of the unintentional PC clone situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_the_IBM_PC_on_the_personal_computer_market

Compatibility became so important that Dave Winer joked in 1985 (referring to the PC AT's incomplete compatibility with the IBM PC), "The only company that can introduce a machine that isn't PC compatible and survive is IBM".

When it comes right down to it, I think what we're seeing here is the difference between dictatorship and committee. A dictatorship is the most efficient form of leadership, both for quickly putting ahead or for nosediving it into the ground. The failures we won't hear about so much, not unless it's an established company cratering. A founder will have more pull with a company than a hired hand down the line. If a company lacks a leader or a group of leaders with a clear vision and means to effect it, they will likely muddle along on autopilot. There's a lot of internal politics that can sabotage good ideas and prevent them from ever making it to market. The story of Apple when Jobs returned was of a lot of brilliant people in a circular firing squad. They had really great starts on a new OS that went nowhere.

Anyway, I think Musk's companies are either poised for greatness or a crash. I don't think anyone but he as the founder could get away with it. I don't doubt that if SpaceX perfects reusable launch vehicles, it will settle down into a more traditional sort of outfit as business grows. When Musk is gone, it will probably be staid and respectable. And that's when it could be time for a brash new upstart to shake things up a bit.

Cordwainer said...

The thing is Iraq does have one of the largest reserves of oil in the Middle East and Afghanistan has huge mineral resources that they have yet been able to exploit.

Terrorist or extremist groups getting their hands on such wealth could make them a force to be reckoned with like Iran and create a destabilizing influence in other nations in the Middle East we are allied with or have good trade relations with.

I don't think the West should force order in the Middle East through our military presence but we are obliged to help and defend those that ask for our help. Not only is defending our national interests towards obtaining access to natural resources in the Middle East but it's the honorable and humanitarian thing to do.

Giving our allies the tools to fight their own battles is not the same as occupying a country in some vain attempt to fight a "war on terrorism". It's merely positioning those groups into a situation where they are better able to determine their own self-determination as nation-states.

To be honest I don't think diplomatic appeals to the Sunni's at this point in the game will bring them to trust al-Maliki's governance but appeals towards a more proportional government and greater autonomy for the Kurds and consequently the Sunni's could certainly bring the Kurds into the fray and perhaps keep some Sunni groups in the Sunni triangle neutral in all of this.

Cordwainer said...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/11/some-high-schoolers-built-a-satellite-and-nasa-just-sent-it-to-space/281681/

This might be of some interest?

Cordwainer said...

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/rock-that-whizzed-by-earth-may-be-grabbed-by-nasa

If we are concerning ourselves with a rock or a jumble of rocks 20 to 30 feet in diameter in orbit around the Moon why would we even bother sending a manned mission. Seems like we could automate the whole thing, we could probably even bring the whole asteroid as a sample return rather than parts of it.

As for training astronauts to move around and do EVA on an asteroid it seems more like a PR stunt than anything useful. Asteroid exploration and "mining" seems entirely doable via automaton.

It's the Moon and Mars where a manned mission would really be useful and only because of the vast and varied environment one would have to explore. Exploration of such environments would favor hands-on investigation and decision making skills over what a team of scientists working a remote probe with some degree of communication and mechanical problems can accomplish.

Tony said...

Cordwainer:

"One cheap solution I could see being used in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant would be marrying light and medium artillery pieces with a mobile delivery system by air and ground along with cheap reconnaissance drones for real-time targeting."

The problem, as always, is not the footprint of the immediate tactical means, but the necessary size and complexity of the logistics and maintenance infrastructure. Artillery, in particular, is all about logistics, because ammunition is heavy, as is the fuel to move it around. There is no such thing as "cheap" artillery.

Tony said...

Cordwainer:

"That being said ISIL is a dangerous radical group that must be dealt with quickly and efficiently lest they become even more of a threat. If that means cooperating with Iran then so be it, but we should also support Kurdish forces as well to keep an even playground in case the situation does result in the dissolution of Iraq as a state."

Except that the part that's making them so effective is not a dangerous radical group, but the ex-Saddam regime officers that Rumsfeld used to like to call "dead enders", and a gathering of Sunni tribes that want to get out from under the Shiite-favoritist regime of Maliki. As this point, ISIS seems to be nothing more than some shock troops, at one end of the spectrum, and a large, well-funded strategic oversight agency, at the other. In the middle is the mass of the previously mentioned officers and Sunni tribal organizations. They are, taken together, way beyond being "dealt with quickly".

"Plus I would point out that artillery mortars are quite common in Iraq and similar tactics were used to good effect during the Iraq-Iran War. I am quite willing to let the different sides fight it out in their private little war but that doesn't mean we can't put a little money down on who we want to win."

The artillery and mortars used in any war are of course effective. But, as previously stated, they are only effective in relation to the logistical commitment behind them.

Aside from that, we really don't want the Maliki government to win, if it has to win with our support. That just makes us look like the allies of the Shiites and nobody else. Not a smart play, anyway you look at it.

Tony said...

jollyreaper:

The difference between Roku and cable (or satellite), is the Roku is internet-dependent, while cable has secured, dedicated bandwidth. Ask anybody who's watched a TV program on dedicated bandwidth media, then watched the same thing again on internet-based media, the quality difference is obvious.

The same point can be made about digital delivery of static media. You can get most new books in Kindle format these days. (And I honestly don't see what's all that wrong with Kindle technology, so I'm not sure where you were going with that whole thing about: "...Amazon is calling the shots for better or worse, some of it the worst.") But a print book is still a preferable format, if you can afford it, and have a place to keep it. Digital books are device-dependent, you see, whereas a book is its own device. A digitization of a "coffee table" format book just doesn't do the artwork (and often the typography) justice, except on very large devices, such as desktop monitors. But you can't lay on your bed with a desktop monitor, or pass it around the table.

Similarly, nobody has found a way to make a digital book truly as random access as a real book. Even with digital bookmarks, the pages just don't seem as flip-able. A lot of it has to do with poor organization of the books, as well as poor interface conventions within the e-readers themselves. But I don't foresee that being fixed anytime soon. It's much more likely that we'll get a bunch of competing conventions, with very few real standards. Think of having to do all of your reading on a random selection of POS terminals, and you'll see what I mean.

The digital device is a very limited means of presentation, it turns out.

WRT SpaceX, I really don't get the whole youth culture supposition. They couldn't have gotten as far as they have without some very good, very experienced engineers in key roles. They're behaving more like a Skunk Works than anything else, including no apparent profit motive and doing all of their R&D on the government dime. Also, if they make a reusable launch vehicle, it will not be the signal for them to settle down into normal business behaviors. It will be a clear indicator that they're going out of business soon. They're simply not going to find a way of doing business that nobody else could in the last sixty years. That people still believe they can is evidence of gullibility and ignorance, not clear vision.

Cordwainer said...

Well, at this point I think Iraq is probably a dead end. While ISIL doesn't entirely have the full support of Sunni's those dead enders you speak of are likely to not offer much resistance to them as they would profit more from remaining neutral at this stage in the hostility's. While some Sunni groups in Anbar have opposed them I doubt that ISIL will self destruct as some hope they will, their "shock troops" have proven to be far too ruthless and effective to be put down by some angry Old Baathist's.

Iran is already come out and said that they see the U.S. as the ones behind fomenting sectarian violence in the region, so supporting the current Shiite regime isn't going to piss our allies off anymore than they already are. Supporting the Shiites isn't going to be anymore or less advantageous in the long term compared to say god forbid getting in bed with ISIL. Our Sunni allies will be pissed off whichever side we choose. We can always hide behind the idea of supporting Iraq's sovereignty.

The real problem is the logistic element the U.S. has and intelligence gap since we left and it doesn't look like the Iraqi Army is up to the task to supporting the necessary logistics. Some of this could be made up for with us supplying them with air power, pilots and training but this might create a much larger presence than what could diplomatically or politically be possible.

As to the use of cannon as a cheap alternative, I meant that in terms of cheap in comparison to air strikes and missiles. Supplying cannon and ammunition with the capability to move that artillery quickly via aircraft on loan might be provide a more long term solution to taking territory and actually keeping it over a whack a mole approach with the occasional air strike in support of infantry. Whether the Iraqi Army has the organization and intelligence needed to use such a strategy to good effect is debatable.

Cordwainer said...

I would point out that for most "entertainment" options Roku is really not that bad in terms of quality compared to dedicated bandwidth. It's when you want to do something like surf the internet or download/upload files that your going to have issues. Live Stream works fine over a private channel and as long as the local node is not being overloaded with customers then performance is not going to suffer. Actually, if your network is sufficiently robust then you could have relatively large private area networks over a metropolitan zone that delivers content from a larger common provider without bandwidth issues. The technology is getting good enough that "dedicated bandwidth" is not really the issue it's how you manage things from the local server effectively that is the issue. A wireless PAN if done right could actually offer security and management advantages for a local server.

I agree with Tony's points on electronic media but then I'm old fashioned. Considering how the young bandy about their smart phones all the time, I could very well see old-fashioned books becoming rare in a generation or two. Just watch Kids React to a cassette player for example.

As to SpaceX I don't think in your God like wisdom that you can declare SpaceX a failure yet, Tony. I'm not seeing the correlation to Skunk Works. I do thing they may be spending far more money then making profit at the moment, but the same can be said of many early aircraft and aerospace companies. I think that they have a very marketable product with their expendable rockets and whether they develop a reusable rocket or not doesn't mean that doing so will necessarily bankrupt them it just means they lose money on that one project. They could have other money-makers in the pipeline and technology developed as part of their reusable launcher project could have profitable uses elsewhere if reusables prove to not have a market or be cost-efficient.

While I think it is more likely than not that they will fail, they have proven time and time again to be innovators so who really knows. Sixty years is a long time I think we are bound for a few technological advances in how rockets are made and of what I've seen so far with Space X does not seem outlandish or impractical, they actually seem to be quite practical and conservative in their engineering expectations.

jollyreaper said...

The difference between Roku and cable (or satellite), is the Roku is internet-dependent, while cable has secured, dedicated bandwidth. Ask anybody who's watched a TV program on dedicated bandwidth media, then watched the same thing again on internet-based media, the quality difference is obvious.

Really? Because I've noticed that cable companies compress the bejesus out of their programs now. Analog HDTV was pretty sweet but the digital has compression artifacts all over the place. You can have the occassional streaming difficulty from Netflix but I've encountered that about as frequently as cable issues. And netflix gives it to you without commercials FTW.

There's nothing wrong with the Kindle tech, I like it a great deal. I'm a big fan of the service Amazon delivers. What I don't like is the inherent risks of monopsony. I don't trust any concentration of power to the point of having no other legitimate choice. Look at mobile phone companies. They collude and there's absolutely no real choice. Same with cable providers. They collude to set prices and agree to not undercut each other. That's they very definition of anti-competitive. Labor conditions at Amazon don't sound so good, either. Is it possible to deliver a service just as good with a little less evil?

You can't replicate a coffee table book on a mobile device anymore than you can replicate a popup book. But that's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. I might be happy watching a silly animated show on my phone but prefer my big-screen for something like Game of Thrones. This doesn't invalidate the technology. I love riding my bike. I commute to work on it. I can do basic shopping. But if I'm stocking up for a holiday meal, I'm going to need a car. That doesn't make the bike a bad idea, just a bad idea for that particular trip.

As for the SpaceX comment, it's clear you didn't get anything I said. I can't help you with reading comprehension.

Thucydides said...

The conversation is veering al over the place again, which is kind of interesting, although it takes a bit of mental agility to shift from Roku to ISIS to SpaceX in a few paragraphs.

Assuming that the initiative does not fall victim to crony capitalism, Google Fiber is offering much higher throughput. While this isn't very amazing or Earth shattering on its own, it is interesting to see the effect on other cable providers and ISP's in the few cities where Google has either started the project or made serious inquiries. Competition and the "invisible hand" work their magic as Adam Smith said they would.

Because of the high cost of infrastructure, this sort of initiative will take literally decades to unroll across a continental nation like the United States, leading to obvious problems like Balkanization of the network, and obsolescence as technology overtakes older parts of the Google Fiber network. Going wireless has similar problems, including bandwidth congestion, and building the network of "hotspots" capable of handling all the traffic (an armada of balloons or drones, such as Google is proposing might not be the answer either).

ISIS thrives because they offer a "solution" to what is perceived to be a problem. Some of the sponsors of ISIS, like the Gulf States, see it as a way of attacking apostate regimes like Iran, as well as derailing Iranian hegemonic ambitions in the region. Others support ISIS for their own reasons (arguably Salafism might represent Islam's version of the Reformation), and the barbaric behaviour of ISIS encourages the majority who sit on the fence to stay quiet and not get involved, lest they attract attention. Solutions like artillery, air strikes, liberal application of SoF assets and so on are a bit like spraying the wasps without going after the nest: so long as ISIS represents an underlying idea which is culturally attractive, it can remain self energizing even with multiple tiers of leadership and organization destroyed.

Sad to say, but since the various forms of radical Islam are deeply rooted and wide spread, the only way to deal with them is to do what the allies did in WWII: utterly destroy the parent societies (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan), erase and discredit the institutions which promoted the ideologies of National Socialism and State Shinto and rebuild the society and institutions in your own image. Rummy was right when he said Americans would have to stay in Iraq for decades (how long have American forces been stationed in Germany and in and around Japan?).

SpaceX, so long as it exists in its current form, can act as a spur to competition, forcing Boeing, Martin and other aerospace companies to innovate. Of course they can also use crony capitalism to crush SpaceX; what will happen to Elon Musk if he can never get the Falcon or Dragon "man rated", or arcane rules continually prevent the Falcon family from being used to launch USG satellites, and prevent the technology from being sold abroad? This is similar in a way to both the Google tiber story (competition is good), as well as crony capitalism in the telecoms industry (working to keep Google finer out of the market).

Thucydides said...

Looked at my post and realized how much I hate autocorrect, especially when you don't notice it changing the words while you type...

Cordwainer said...

All, good points though Thucydides minus the typos. I would point out that wireless and streaming devices offer a competitive and overhead advantage that I think even the big cable and telecom companies cannot ignore. Market trends our pushing people away from the outrageous prices that cable and satellite companies currently charge. The reduced cost of wireless devices and the flexibility of modern servers will make the "new kids on the block" like Google, Cricket, Roku and Century Link highly sought after assets by the monolithic crony capitalist set. With the upgrade to new infrastructure and IpV6 format I think the crony capitalists will have to join them rather than try to beat them with regulations and lawsuits. The reality is that other than Google the big telecoms our the ones that still essentially own the "highway" the competitors our merely building new roads and traffic management systems for those highways. I am actually pretty optimistic that wireless technology will greatly aid the delivery of internet and broadband services to more remote areas so I don't actually see a balkanization of the internet happening but rather a steady increase in QoS.

While crony capitalism could certainly spell the death of Space X I think co-competition as well as open cooperation between the various aerospace vendors will keep Space X from being stymied too much. I foresee that is far more likely that Space X will eventually fall to a merger once Musk has spent himself to pauperhood.

Tony said...

jollyreaper:

"Is it possible to deliver a service just as good with a little less evil?"

Why doesn't Tony take jollyreaper seriously? Above we have a perfect example. "[E]vil"? Really? Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and amazon.com. all encompassed in the same category. This, j, is how you lose the grownup audience.

jollyreaper said...

And why doesn't jolly take tony seriously? Because he remains stubbornly impervious to the give and take of rational discourse. My opinion is correct, tony intones. But it's not just me saying it, I have the full weight of my long years of experience and the experience of all who came before and the weight of the heavens and the firmament all arrayed against you who has the temerity to take a stand contrary to the natural order of the universe. You have an opinion on things that have come, you have an opinion over things not yet come. And of course it really isn't an opinion because how can incontrovertible truth be subjective? There is no questioning this truth, there is only the question of how long it will take the children to come round to reason.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go drain the ocean with a thimble, an activity slightly less futile than talking to you.

jollyreaper said...

I hope this is just your Internet personality, T. I can't imagine the suffering of those around you if this is how you behave in real life.

Tony said...

You really don't get it, do you? You (regularly) equate sharp business practices and politics you don't like with the worst of humanity. That's what "evil" means -- the worst that people can do to each other. The simple fact that you find it insufferably antisocial to have that pointed out to you -- not to mention the fact that it has to be pointed out to you at all -- makes *you* the rude, immature bore here, j.

jollyreaper said...

I am glad you have been deputized to speak for the rest of the audience for surely the lack of anyone else saying these things does not mean that they disagree but lacked for words to put such thoughts to print. They are truly in your debt.

Tony said...

I've only ever spoken for myself. But I think it a fair assessment to think that most people would find it morally obtuse to expand the category "evil" to encompass both the Rape of Nanking (for example) and the doings of Jeff Bestow and the boyz. So I have to ask, do you really not see the difference? Or do you just care so little?

Cordwainer said...

Wow, it's turning into "Internet Argument Guy" in here isn't it. Can we have a little more tolerance for each others respective viewpoints. So what if jollyreaper is a "angry young man" with a bone to pick about capitalist exploitation. He has a right to his opinion and if anything it adds to the debate in regards to the dangers associated with not properly managing technological progress,both in terms of unexpected consequences and in the area of how social and economic forces effect the rate and direction of technological progress. Without jolly you would have a lot less reason to post in the first place, Tony.

While I don't agree with some of jolly's rhetoric I think his opinion has some weight in terms of how one would reasonably apply technological changes in a story when faced with public sentiment similar to his.

As for Tony, you do kind of come of as an old foagie windbag at times, which just goes to show that with age and experience doesn't necessarily come tact and wisdom. It's a blog Tony you don't have to post if you don't want to and you don't have to be baited into a debate. If you want to inform others of your opinion or educated others with factual data that supports your beliefs that is perfectly alright, but at the end of the day much of subject matter that is discussed here is mostly conjecture and opinion. Even a panel of experts discussing these same subjects would have radically different view points.

As to the morality of monolithic business practices within a capitalistic society. My own opinion is that it is certainly a bad thing in some respects and good thing in other respects. It can stifle innovation and progress but at the same time it can accomplish things through co-competition that could not be achieved by a smaller more open business model.

All human activity can lead to direct or indirect consequences that most would quantify as "evil" in some respect. That is why you need regulation and checks and balances in both government and the market. Problem is that we have do have a situation where businesses have a great deal of say in how they regulate themselves through the political power they wield and through the institutions originally put in place to regulate them having become co-opted.

Personally, it is my opinion we need better transparency, independent review and sanctions of these organizations. As well as an actual loosening of regulations in terms of patents, copyrights and licensing to allow for greater competition and innovation. Creating public funding for elections and greater centralization and oversight of non-government organizations in charge of regulating industry and corporate culture could help to.

That being said human error and corrupt practices will occur within any system no matter how well regulated the system. Even in a system that wasn't profit motivated like the VA we have seen horribly corrupt practices all because people wanted to get a "good report card" with their oversight agencies.

Cordwainer said...

I do wonder with all the advancements we see in communication and sensor/guidance technologies along with aerial drones if the need for communications satellites will lessen in the coming decades. If we see a drying up of the need for commercial space applications and a more inward concern by polities towards resource utilization and austerity could we see a doldrum period or "Dark Age" in space exploration in our near future?

On a roundabout note regarding the subject of this post could the theory that a drying up of commercial markets through overuse of natural resources and increased access and progress in technology be the actual cause of the Bronze Age collapse? If smaller polities became better at defending and making use of their territorial resources then the need for territorial expansion and external trade might have waned thus cementing the long period of "decline" we see particularly in Bronze Age Greece.

jollyreaper said...

I do wonder with all the advancements we see in communication and sensor/guidance technologies along with aerial drones if the need for communications satellites will lessen in the coming decades.


It's theoretically possible. We've seen the example of seemingly necessary technologies leapfrogged by developing nations, i.e. going from no telecommunications to cell phones completely bypassing landlines. If some mix of google balloon internet and high-altitude solar drone mix serve as an acceptable replacement for satellites, that could cut into the market. The necessity of orbiting telescopes for astronomy was a no-brainer and yet adaptive optics are now making ground-based telescopes extremely competitive with space-based models. You still need to be in orbit for anything you're trying to detect that would be blocked by Earth's atmosphere.

If we see a drying up of the need for commercial space applications and a more inward concern by polities towards resource utilization and austerity could we see a doldrum period or "Dark Age" in space exploration in our near future?

That's a distinct possibility. The biggest threat to the plausible future in space is a lack of compelling economic, political or religious need to get up there. Posit a global theocracy that makes it a mandate of heaven to get out there and put people on every planet, we're building spaceships, same as the Egyptians built pyramids that seemed to have no useful purpose. That's assuming there is no eventual justification for space colonies, that we're just pissing money away.

Just because something would be awesome isn't going to be enough to get it off the ground. I think zeppelins are really cool but there's a host of reasons why airships proved impractical in the 20th century. It remains to be seen if new technology can make them relevant in the 21st century. Same goes with giant flying boats. Those things were really, really cool. Also really uneconomical compared with modern jetliners.

jollyreaper said...


On a roundabout note regarding the subject of this post could the theory that a drying up of commercial markets through overuse of natural resources and increased access and progress in technology be the actual cause of the Bronze Age collapse? If smaller polities became better at defending and making use of their territorial resources then the need for territorial expansion and external trade might have waned thus cementing the long period of "decline" we see particularly in Bronze Age Greece.

It's so hard to say. Look at a profitable family business and it's going fine until one day the two brothers who inherited it from dear old dad have a falling out and sell it at a loss. It makes no sense to us and we have no idea why they did it. They have their reasons. Run it forward a hundred years and you have no personal stories, only legal papers to work from. Unless they go into messy family details in the filings, there's no way for anyone to know what caused the acrimony.

While I'm not a complete believer in cyclic history, I do think that there's a tendency to repeat old mistakes. Living memory is a powerful thing. The man who lived through something awful won't let his son forget it. And in case his son is thickheaded, he won't let his grandson forget it, either. But in another generation or two, great granddad's stories are forgotten. The mistake can be made again. Sometimes it doesn't even take several generations, only one will do, given the type of mistake to be made.

I have a feeling that civilization is one of those things best appreciated by those who know what it's like not to have it. And then subsequent generations become used to the peace, complacent, and start to imagine what glories there might be if they were rid of these constraints. And civilization collapses and these worthies discover that it's only good to be in the barbarian wasteland when you are the king. Barring that, there's not much to commend it. And civilization starts looking real good about then.

Cordwainer said...

I think it more likely that new improvements in communication satellites themselves, wireless communication devices, cell signal amplifiers and common protocol networks might lessen the need for the number of ground stations and therefore the need for satellites is more likely than an armada of drones.

Although, tethered air ships could provide a temporary flexible option for expanding signal to remote areas without having to build a cell tower. Drones that would be used for other tasks could also be used within a common protocol network where wireless computing devices share data processing and signal communication duties, essentially acting as signal repeaters to strengthen a wireless networks reach.

As to space telescopes, I wonder if high altitude formation flying drones armed with telescopes with adaptive optics might allow one to see those things that the atmosphere blocks for cheaper than a space based telescope. Space based telescopes will no doubt always offer greater clarity and precision than any terrestrial of aerial version but for a lot of astronomers needs for data collection an aerial telescope or sensor system might offer some advantages. Smaller cubesat based telescopes and sensor systems could offer a competitive advantage for small nations and poorer organizations over larger space telescopes as well. If that is the case then the need for large arrays and antennas that SpiderFab is aiming to offer may prove pointless.

Cordwainer said...

As to the subject of "evil" call me a moral relativist if you will but "evil is still evil by any name". Whether something occurs directly or indirectly due to actions we as humans take does not change the tragedy those actions create. As to the actions of the truly criminal or negligent it does little good to call what they do evil since this does little to change their behavior one iota.(in fact for the mentally ill it probably reinforces their behavior)

Calling something "evil" is just a way to make ourselves feel morally superior and comfort our own selves with the knowledge that the behavior of the "truly evil" is somehow alien, abnormal or aberrant when in fact it is as much a part of the human condition as any behavior.

To actually effect change one must understand the causes of a behavior and determine whether it is something that can be or needs to be psychologically and culturally trained out of the participants in that behavior or if it is a behavior that is of sufficient danger to require the removal of those behavioral participants from society permanently.

jollyreaper said...

As to the subject of "evil" call me a moral relativist if you will but "evil is still evil by any name". Whether something occurs directly or indirectly due to actions we as humans take does not change the tragedy those actions create.


We still like to make distinctions, even when it seems like splitting hairs. Premeditated murder is worse than impulsive murder. Murder is a worse form of homicide than manslaughter because it's a question of intent. We think there's a difference between a warplane dropping a bomb on the wrong target and hitting an orphanage vs. militants killing the same number of children one by one.

As to the actions of the truly criminal or negligent it does little good to call what they do evil since this does little to change their behavior one iota.(in fact for the mentally ill it probably reinforces their behavior)

Well, in the sense of dot.com behavior, Google's the one who introduced evil to the conversation. "Don't be evil." And when dot.coms are doing not nice things, I think it's a fair term to use given context. I'm using it in the colloquial sense here.

Calling something "evil" is just a way to make ourselves feel morally superior and comfort our own selves with the knowledge that the behavior of the "truly evil" is somehow alien, abnormal or aberrant when in fact it is as much a part of the human condition as any behavior.

Depends on who's doing the naming. For me, I think that it's far too easy to have a comforting layer of BS insulate the human cogs and gears from the consequences of the organizations they're a part of. Most people won't crush a puppy or beat a homeless man to death or nick a $20 out of the collection plate. But consider moral hazards like our mortgage crisis in 2008. When the people in charge of reviewing the mortgages did not get a cut of the proceeds, they graded more firmly. When they were given a cut, they had the temptation to grade a little more leniently but also convinced themselves they were behaving no differently from before. Psych studies have proven that tokenization and abstraction from real money makes it easier for people to mentally justifying stealing. Someone who wouldn't reach into a client's purse to take a dollar might feel comfortable offering a higher interest rate on a loan than was qualified for if he's getting a cut. It's stealing that doesn't feel like stealing.

jollyreaper said...

To actually effect change one must understand the causes of a behavior and determine whether it is something that can be or needs to be psychologically and culturally trained out of the participants in that behavior or if it is a behavior that is of sufficient danger to require the removal of those behavioral participants from society permanently.

The thing that kind of blows me away is our moral landscape is still basically mired in religious thinking. Manichean moral dualism can also make sins out of harmless things such as homosexuality, masturbation, singing and dancing, etc. And even a simple dictum of "Do no harm" can become complicated when you start trying to define what harm is. What really bakes my noodle is how little we truly understand about the human mind and the origin of behaviors. You look at the rise of violent crime rates into the 1970's and the sudden drop since then and wonder what the hell? Turns out environmental lead contamination played havoc with the population. Impulse control is damaged, people are no longer in charge of their own minds. You actually can't hold them intentionally responsible for their behavior even as you jail them to protect society.

Then you ask "Well, how did all that lead get into the environment?" And you learn about leaded gasoline and the Ethyl Corporation and how hard they lobbied to suppress information about how bad it was for people. This isn't a case of "Wow, who could have known?" The company knew. The company didn't care. What's the total death toll? Who knows. But there was no evil here, no sir. Just sharp business decisions made by shrewd men. You have to think of the shareholders. That's your moral obligation. Humanity? They're not paying your salary, son. You have to get your priorities straight.

Can situations be complicated? Yes. You can't tell a starving bushman to not poach an elephant to feed his family because we want to conserve it. You want to change his behavior, change his attitude. Give him a reason to protect the elephant, make it's welfare and his clearly linked. He's not going to kill a laying hen if it's producing good eggs, now is he? But that's a hell of a different situation from, say, a corporation fighting regulations that will save lives because it'll also cost money. There's no gray area there, no complexity. They just don't want to spend the money. But nobody involved in the process will feel any guilt.

TL;DR While there can be complexity and shades of gray in a situation, you can still look at the results and determine there's something wrong. You can write a book about why Vietnam happened but all you really need to know is 3.1 million dead, the country still went communist and no other dominoes fell. It was an obscenity. Bad outcomes, bad idea.

Cordwainer said...

Yeah, tell me about it I live in the Puget Sound where the ESARCO plant and coal industry left lead and arsenic contamination in the soil and I cringe when I see how developmentally behind kids are and how poor impulse control and social skills among adults further exacerbates bad behavior.

While I am no expert in childhood development I've studied the subject because I had developmental problems of my own as a kid and I have had the luck to live in many different parts of the world. Taking out factors like poverty, drug use and negative influences in the media I tend to see a definite difference between the social environment among similar socioeconomic groups between rural vs. urban areas and developing vs. developed nations.

In other words in areas with less pollution the kids seem socially more savvy and less impulsive from my highly speculative viewpoint. Obviously my first party experience is highly speculative and not very scientific but I wouldn't doubt if there is a causal link their somewhere. Fortunately many heavy metals and mutagenic compounds have been removed from industry and agriculture. Problem is that many many of these substances stick around for decades to come and many hormone altering compounds are still commonly used.

jollyreaper said...

And what you are experiencing , my dear Cordwainer, is a market externality, something I have on good authority simply does not exist.

There was a great point made by David Suzuki. He was speaking with a logging company owner. The guys says I can tell you what the value is of an acre of felled timber. . Board-feet, market price, I can put it in dollars and cents. What's the value of a standing forest? Suzuki realized the man had a point. The standing forest is important but does the work for free. There's no dollar value on such an intangible and it is literally incalculable. We can put a price on the value of clean water because every house comes with a meter but there's no way to meter air or charge for it. Such an important contribution remains utterly invisible. You violate the coke parent and lawyers will put boots in your face. You nick a song from the stones and there's legal violence going down. You destroy an ecosystem and there's no consequence. The ecosystem has no advocate. The solution would be that the government exists to provide advocacy and consequences. Your company hurts the public good, a government agency should be there to advocate. If not them, then the courts are at your disposal. Sue the offender.

I think of the Joker's line: if you're good at something, never do it for free. The environment hasn't been charging. God help us when she starts.

Cordwainer said...

I would point out that with the advent of ecotourism and greater appreciation of the value of the natural environment that some nations and groups are attempting to create a market value for such "externalities". Carbon credit and green bond markets may eventually develop a price factor for use of such "externalities" and this actually may turn out to be a good thing, since it does create a tool to legislate advocacy to defend the environment.

As to splitting hairs and the weight of culpability there is something to be said for both hindsight is 50/50 and the "just following orders" alibi. It is those in charge or who were the architects of a plan of action who are most culpable not those who were misled or brainwashed into carrying out that action.

Similarly those in charge are not always cognizant of what the outcome of their actions may have and may not have behaved in the way they had if they had been able to make a more informed decision.

Tony said...

I truly wonder if you have been to the Third World, Cord. Because I certainly have, and they don't treat their environment halfway as decently as we do. In fact, I would say that we're so conscious of it that what we perceive as environmental tragedies would go totally unmentioned in other places. If Jolly wants to talk about who advocates for forests in the US, he should research how much land is not logged because it is being preserved, or at least managed by some private or government organization. Then he should research how logging in the Amazon takes place, and how it is barely regulated, if regulated at all, no matter how much damage it does to the ecosystem.

WRT evil, Cord, it is precisely because we have to judge the relative merits of cases that we have to be careful how we apply that word. Most things just aren't evil, even if they're not optimal.

WRT jolly himself, I see it this way: there are plenty of bright young men in the world who want to be involved and who want to be taken seriously. There are so many in fact that the only way to rise above and actually be taken seriously is to make some serious sense. The reason that I keep going back to his age and inexperience is simply because he hasn't listened to earnest young men for thirty years, all spouting the same nonsensical slogans. He doesn't know that he's spouting the same ones. I can tell him. But until he has much more experience of the world, he simply won't believe, because it's all new to him and it seems all so important. He doesn't understand that he hasn't had an original thought -- or even heard an original thought -- ever, and that everything he thinks is new and exciting is old and tired.

Finally, WRT externalities and forests (or anything else that everyone uses the products of), one has to remember that the "everyone benefits, everyone pays" rule applies. When the loggers cut down trees, yes they get paid immediately, while environmental effects may take years to play out. However, Their getting paid isn't the end of the story. People buy the wood, chop it up in sawmills, and they get paid. Then people buy the lumber and resell it to the general public, and they get paid. Then the general public either uses the lumber directly, or it's made into products that end users buy. And everybody benefits from the logging of some piece of the forest. Then, eventually, to the degree that it actually affects people in ways that they care about -- and, despite what the Sierra Club tells you, it's how environmental damage affects people that determines what is done about it -- Everybody pays the price to fix or mitigate whatever their hunger for wood has cost. It's never been any more complicated than that.

jollyreaper said...

Tony, your head is so far up your ass you could taste for polyps. But that's important for someone of your advanced years.

Tony said...

That's the spirit, j -- answer reason with vitriol.

Cordwainer said...

Actually, I haven't been to all that many Third World countries just Haiti and Thailand where they burn all their trash and have massively deforested areas. Your right they don't treat their environment as well as we do but they don't have access to many of the same chemical wastes that we do.

Pesticides are an issue because the international community keeps the prices relatively cheap but heavy metals and petrochemicals are not quite as prevalent and have not been as prevalent in most of the Third World as in the developed world where we are decades ahead. We were discussing specifically lead concentrations due to the use of lead paint and leaded gasoline and air pollution from industrial sources specifically.

I am sure in a couple of decades that much of the developing world will catch up with U.S. and Europe. God, knows China, Korea and Japan have surpassed those nations in air pollution already. The big issue that real Third World nations face right now though is water quality and deforestation due to logging and climate change not air quality.

Neighboring developed nations air quality is mostly impacted by slash and burn agriculture and burnpit trash disposal effect but not as significantly as you may think. Most wood aerosols tend to stay within the local area and don't rise far into the atmosphere and even in the cases where large clouds of smoke develop and move due to monsoon winds the smoke tends to settle quickly enough.

Dust from soil erosion travels further than smoke and smoke like fossil fuels is not toxic in itself, rather it is the effect that particulates of smoke and petrochemicals when aerosolized has on the lungs that is the danger.

Rather it is the other chemical components and heavy metals found in petrochemicals that is dangerous to the human nervous system. Breathing in smoke is like smoking cigarettes it will take years off your life and fuck with your physical health but it won't fuck with your ability to think all that much.

Also, while much of the developed world has strong regulations on illegal dumping and waste treatment those laws are seldom enforced. Europe has some of the best enforcement while China has some of the worst. America and Japan are somewhere in the middle and Canada and Australia are probably worse than the U.S. or Japan in terms of enforcement.

Japan's enforcement policies are only a recent development though as a reaction to air quality issues created by poor legal requirements on polluters that were not changed until the early 90's, their enforcement is still hindered by Yakuza and government corruption which is further complicated by a culture of accountability that does not close the loop or call for transparency in regards to mistakes. In other words as long as you have somebody fall on their sword the "fatcat" bosses can carry on with whatever misdeeds they were doing.

Australia and Canada's governments suffer more from special interests than we do here in America as far as I can tell, to the point that they can't form a strong enough quorum within the executive and legislative branches to pass better anti-pollution laws or enforce the laws they have.

I would bet that the majority of petrochemicals burned in Africa and the Middle East is from waste burns off of wells or from trash disposal and not from automobiles, by the way.

Geoffrey S H said...

"He doesn't understand that he hasn't had an original thought -- or even heard an original thought -- ever, and that everything he thinks is new and exciting is old and tired."

I don't think he's trying to argue his thoughts are original. Nobody on this forum has ever had an original thought, and no one cares. Are they interesting thoughts? Yes, like all the thoughts here. Sometimes discussing hoary old arguments is what one has to do.



Cordwainer said...

Well, Tony it's very hard to make any sense when one is trying to quantify the damage human's have done to the environment. The politics is divisive and emotional and the science is hard-pressed to show how serious the damage is.

We are talking about actions that have taken place over decades even centuries in some cases that involve processes within nature that often take decades to provide statistically concrete data. It's not as simple as what pollutants or deforestation do within a local area there are other more far reaching effects that are difficult to quantify a great deal of damage can take place before anyone notices the severity of the damage and does something about it.

Also, human beings are stubborn creatures we don't like to change our behavior even when a rational argument is made. Furthermore human technology makes us far more removed from are natural environment than other creatures which means that it may take decades before a government notices the health impact on their people.

Which brings us to the crux of the problem which is that market solutions are too slow to react and expensive to apply in many cases, while governments are often too poor or too indecisive to act in their best interest when it comes to environmental problems as well.

Fixing things would not necessarily be that hard there are a handful of solutions that would greatly reduce the effects of climate change and improve our air, soil and water quality. Problem is that we would likely have to engage the entire world in taking up those solutions which is difficult even under the best international conditions.

Tony said...

Geoffrey S H:

"I don't think he's trying to argue his thoughts are original. Nobody on this forum has ever had an original thought, and no one cares. Are they interesting thoughts? Yes, like all the thoughts here. Sometimes discussing hoary old arguments is what one has to do."

The difference between jollyreaper and most of the rest of us is that he doesn't understand that his ideas and ideals are from the Sixties and Seventies, and that they never made the grade in the real marketplace of ideas -- as opposed to the intellectual ghettos where those concepts make you a hero merely to utter.

Tony said...

Cord:

I really can't unwind what you're trying to say. You go on and on, and never seem to get anywhere.

Geoffrey S H said...

Possible new topic idea:

I found myself watching some old star trek videos on youtube last night (no idea why!) and realised that there was little consistency between the technologies of ST: Enterprise, and ST: Voyager for example. Furthermore, what for one alien race was primitive looking, was for another utilitarian despite the presence of girders fuel tanks etc. (for those that know of these things this example was a comparison between the Kazon and the Hirogen, apologies for the geekery there- for some reason the more primitive Xindi in enterprise look much more advanced).

The same goes for star wars, only there there is virtually no tech advancement, r the occasional spurt, depnding on the writor/editor.

So my question is this: For those engaging in world building, how would we make our spacecraft LOOK more and more advanced as time went on if our future histories were long hundred (thousand?) year affairs? Essentially, how would we show the passage of history visually in our stories? From what I've seen, most of human society manages to innovate at farily broad level of advanceent, even if some still have an advantage over others (leaving out stone age tribes etc), and it can usually be seen if you know what to look for. So in my mind showing proper aesthetic representation of technological advancements makes sense.

jollyreaper said...

Showing the advancement is hard to pull off because we all have a genetic idea of what looks advanced and primitive but it's greatly influenced by our own cultural biases.

Technology is about getting stuff done. The point of any technology isn't the using of that technology. Even when it's for recreation, you use the hang-glider to fly because it's the best tool for the job. You'd use an antigrav belt otherwise. The only real exception to this are antiquarians who make the outdated tech part of the fun. But if there's no hobby side to it, no technical limitation or philosophy at work, people will use the best tool for the job.

So, that being said, there's two things that I think are likely but this also bears the weight of my own cultural bias. Thing 1: the more the technology gets out of the way, the better. (Excluding the hobbyist, hipster elements, etc.) We use a mouse and keyboard because it's the best interface we have at the moment. Minority Report interfaces would be obnoxious, voice recognition sucks right now. If we can do away with the keyboard and mouse, so much the better. If we can do away with the monitor, too? Run it forward a thousand years to the best possible interface, it may well be something neural where we're tossing requests to the computer like an offhand thought and seeing the results in our mind's eye or even overlaid on our field of view. It would be possible to portray this in print, very difficult in a visual medium.

Thing 2 is that we are fashion-conscious as a species and so much of how we choose to interface with a technology will likely be driven by fashion trends that can either move with or completely sideways to actual technical abilities. Witness the idiotic march to flat interfaces that end up being more difficult to work with than the formerly-loved skeumorphics. In time everyone will decide flat is a terrible idea and rush to embrace some other trend that may well prove equally obnoxious.

Something that's a bit hard to even try rationalizing is the Marvel Cinematic Universe depiction of the Asgardians. They are super-advanced aliens wielding clarketech and yet everything has a clear analogue to the design motifs and technologies of primitive Scandinavian tribesmen. You can't really explain this away. Even if the sword the Asgardian wields is some vorpal blade that can cleave anything it cuts, it still can't reach further than the swordsman's arm. A flintlock pistol has it beat out in that regard. Why don't they use some gun equivalent? Why are they wearing armor that looks like Xena Warrior Princess as seen through Neuromancer glasses?

But as ridiculous as all that is, it makes me wonder what people might pick for interfaces in a world where anything is possible. The whole crystal spires and togas view of the future I think is more of a failure of imagination than a great premise. I think it's more likely that there will be any number of views as to what constitutes an ideal way of life and use for technology and people will tend to self-segregate to finding the best style to live in. Biophilics might tend towards treehouses in forests, others might like glittering cities with chrome and glass interiors. There's been speculative fiction looking at bioengineering and we've seen visual scifi with people living inside sentient biological structures. Do you want your food coming from plants and animals we'd recognize in the 21st century, excreted from nutritive organs growing out of the wall of your house, or from some highly engineered organism that looks like a normal plant but is, say, a fungus that grows fruiting bodies that smell and taste like fine beef?

Because we're talking about speculative futures, there's no right or wrong, just whether the concept has verisimilitude. And the great thing is if we're wrong, we'll all be hundreds of years dead before anyone can call us on it!

Cordwainer said...

Well, technological progress and differences in the type of technology used is going to differ a great deal from one group or environment to another.

We have a big technological difference in our own time period between the undeveloped, developing and "developed" nations of the planet. There is also a great deal of difference from one region to another due to economic disparities and environmental differences.

I think you have to forgive the Star Trek gurus a little considering that you would perhaps see a lot of variation between different races and civilizations in an interstellar environment.

As to reflecting technological progress in a literary story I would say it is largely unnecessary unless such progress is somehow an integral part of the story. Even then you don't have to give a whole lot in physical exposition to explain like we no longer use slow ships to travel between star systems cause we have warp drives. Simply describing the action, purpose or process the technology performs is all one needs to do from a literary point. There is no need to get stuck on aesthetics or appearances and in fact any aesthetic is perfectly fine as long as it is a physically possible fit for the technology being described.

To show passage of history in story I would look at factors like:

1. Environmental needs and natural resources necessary and available to the different groups involved in the story(geography is history.

2. Then define what your technological limits will be. What types of technology would be available and what isn't will differ a great deal in a hard science or fantasy SF setting.

3. What is the premise or endgame of the story and how does technological progress fit into the story.

4. What are the possible technological overlaps or technological needs of the groups involved. In other words how much cultural and technological blending occurs and is possible between groups and are their common goals between groups that would give rise to the need for some kind of technological advance shared between those groups in some way.(like advances in transportation to allow greater expansion of trade or political hegemony)

Cordwainer said...

Tony said...
Cord:

I really can't unwind what you're trying to say. You go on and on, and never seem to get anywhere

Yeah, sorry about that I tend to ramble and I like to be the diplomat when I see people fight.

If I were to describe my personal beliefs I would say I'm mostly in line with authors on evolutionary psychology/sociology like Jared Diamond, Steven Pinker and Richard Wrangham though I have yet to fully read their works I am looking to get Catching Fire and Blank Slate on my reading list. I know I tend toward sophistry but really who among us on this blog really supports their views with proper empirical evidence. Like Geoffrey S H said sometimes discussing old hoary arguments is what you have to do.

The question is not whether jollyreapers idealism and views are outdated, immature or politically radical it is rather that the question should be "why are those old hoary arguments still relevant". Particularly when scientific meta-analysis and evidence has largely found jollyreapers views to be largely unfounded or in error.

Why is it that sophistry, deductive logic, forensic debate skills, popular moral arguments given more weight over rational scientific evidence.

When Steven Pinker wrote "Better Angels" Nassim Taleb lambasted him for not having a "clear idea of the difference between science and journalism, or the one between rigorous empiricism and anecdotal statements. Science is not about making claims about a sample, but using a sample to make general claims and discuss properties that apply outside the sample."

When in actuality his claims were properly framed and modest when reporting on the evidence represented in his book. He was not making a theory about general claims that might apply outside the sample but a hypothesis based on meta-analysis that made specific claims on the evidence he put forth that might lead to a reasoned discourse towards a more general theory.

Why is it that scientists, journalists and statisticians in our society can't seem to really grasp the scientific method. It can't just be the classical sociological theory regarding culture and science that socialists and radicals shove down our kids throats any more than it is the Christian bias of Universities sponsored by Pat Robertson and the nutbags in the Christian Coalition and Tea Party that have poisoned libertarianism and progressivism in this country.

I mean not every place is as badly informed as America, right? Or maybe they are since untrained and amateurish American blog-nerds like those that started this discussion pretty much write the news these days and America pretty much owns the global media.

Cordwainer said...

When I say America in that last statement I don't mean some oppressive obscure concept of "American Empire" or "cabal of American capitalists". I mean that the media is largely influenced and contributed to by people within the Anglophilic world and that ownership or partnerships between media outlets are largely "owned" or financially supported by the U.S. and Great Britain. Where do all the great contributors(journalists, scientists, experts) get their education and/or training it is usually by people from America or from the British Commonwealth of States either directly or second-hand. So whatever passes for education and popular opinion in those countries is what gets filtered down to the media in other countries and creates a bias.

The internet and "real-time" satellite news feeds were the death knell for real journalism in my opinion.

Eth said...

Geoffrey S H :
"For those engaging in world building, how would we make our spacecraft LOOK more and more advanced as time went on if our future histories were long hundred (thousand?) year affairs?"

That's a pretty good question actually.
Jollyreaper brings a good point, we generally try to make the technique as unobtrusive as possible. When studying UI and ergonomics, actually, I soon learned that "transparent" is one of the best things you can say about an interface.
That said, there are exceptions : novelty effect and such may make one want to "show off" the technology. Or a more consistent interface may be needed to better make the person "feel" the technology. For example, if I can move things by simple will in an area, I may be seriously disoriented when I leave it and things like, say, a falling bottle dead above, doesn't stop itself as soon as I imagine it.

That said, both technique and culture can vary so much that you actually have a wide margin to imagine changes at this level.

About the aesthetics, it may be a bit difficult to give a definite answer as well. The best is probably to go for what "feels" more advanced, as long as it makes sense (as in, not wearing pyjamas on a warship instead of at least skinsuits)

What I would probably do, assuming cultural bias (both mine and the one of the audience) would be to go for cleaner lines, probably smoother ones as well. Technique itself becomes more and more hidden (compare WWI planes with apparent engines to modern planes).
If possible image- or budget-wise, I would also have objects and environment adapt themselves to people. For example, a SpacePhone!! may subtly change shape when you grab it, to make itself more adapted to your hand.
Doors may graciously retract on walls as if they were an illusion disappearing as you move closer. Rooms and furniture themselves may change slightly to be smoother to the eye, and avoid you to bump into them (or if you do, absorb the impact so you don't hurt yourself).
I would use clear, unburdened lines and shapes, with white and toned down colours. Both because that's what looks futuristic and because I like this style.
I would also avoid using paint, the colour should be in the material itself. The grain would tend to matte.

So basically, when you see a seemingly ceramic-plated, streamlined ship with elliptic primitive forms, you would know it's far more advanced than the angled, metallic one with pipes and stuff pointing from everywhere.

Even more advanced ones would probably have no definite shape anymore. They would look like mirages, seemingly changing depending on the angle or what they do, but rarely seeming to change as you look at them. They wouldn't look quite Euclidian, but in a way that wouldn't catch the eye immediately.
They may also not be in one convex block, as they may not need this big primitive plating to hold the important stuff together.

The most advanced may even be completely invisible, or only strange, mirage-like shapes where one is never quite sure what they are looking at, and if it is there in the first place.

Or just make it bigger. For some reason, I particularly like this one :
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/aliens/megastructure.jpg

Of course, as soon as you throw aliens into the mix, or even estranged (or somehow related to) humans, then anything becomes possible. Varied colours, spike or ribbon-like forests or seas, strange geometric and/or chaotic shapes... As a rule of thumb, I'd say that if it seems more refined, and with less "stuff" visible, it will look more advanced.

Eth said...

Tony :
"I mean not every place is as badly informed as America, right?"

Hard to say.
Here in France, the media are pretty much a caste, and are subservient to the current government. To give you an idea, media workers voted at around 80 percent for the current president, and gave his opponent (the previous president) as many votes as the far left extremist candidate. And since then, being in power, they squeezed the media even harder, freezing people out for daring to give even a bit of speaking time to, and showing glimpse of, more than a million-strong protests, despite a fairly hostile treatment otherwise (yes, I have a specific example in mind for that). Or upon the revelation that they were Church-going Catholics (and yes again).
Given that said government is close to a caricature of bad Progressists (as in, ideological, arrogant, lobby-driven, anticlerical, complete liars and seemingly having no idea how economy works - and calling fascist anyone disagreeing with them and no quandaries using the justice system against their opponent), it makes for a fairly homogeneous and partial voice. Note that I have barely more sympathy for the opposition - if they were that better, they would have fixed things in the 17 fraking years they were running the asylum.
Also, they are more in sensationalism and emotionalism than in any attempt of investigation, and don't exactly always care about the exactness of their information.
The most fascinating part is probably how they manage (or at least try) to make bland, overly conformist opinion show as "bold" "subversive".

And AFAICT, big names in the Internet media are from the same cast (often same journalist schools and/or families), so they are more of the same. I can't tell about smaller names, though.

But it could be worse.
There are a few opposition (or at least not completely aligned) media, and there are even one or two good ones somewhere drown in the mass. So calling them Pravda would be a gross exaggeration.
And while they tend to be very quiet about, for example, the many judicial proceedings concerning government people, they still report most other news, even when it embarrass the government (like, say, still-growing unemployment).

And while internal opposition is free game, they tend to be more measured against other countries. Even when they will show an elected government in an utterly bad light (like they the Bush administration), it won't transfer to the people or the nation too much, showing them more as a victim.
Though I'm pretty sure in the case of the Bush administration, they tried very hard to play the card "look how at least we are so morally superior to them on that". Which kind of void the point...

So, better or worse? You tell me.

About other Western European countries, I can't say for sure but I've heard that they are -slightly- better.

Cordwainer said...

Well, I wasn't really talking about political rigging or control of the media. That is par for the course whether you live in a "democratic" or authoritarian regime. It is in the medias best interest to present the government in a good light even when making valid criticism and it is not uncommon for media outlets to be in the pocket of various political organizations. Here in the U.S. we have a very polarized media with different media outlets showing a strong liberal or conservative bias and very few if any that try to at least feign unbiased moderation when it comes to political preference.

If memory serves calling any party in France center-left or center-right when compared to the political party systems of the Anglocentric world would be an understatement. While republicans and democrats here in the States trade barbs about socialism and facism and some of their politicians may hold very radical or extremist views for the most part in practice they are no where close to the radical missteps and policies we see in many European nations.

It might look like the UMP and PS in France are just bland copies of one another but ideologically and policy wise they have been radically different. The reason it looks that way is partly due to the multi-party system in France that acts as a check to any party exerting too much power in shaping social policy and the fact that France has a much more distributionist economic policy that likely leads to all sorts of cronyism between government and the business sector. Even if Frances politicians were the idealists they try to portray themselves as they would quickly become embroiled in backroom shenanigans and scandals just as Sarkozy has.

What I was commenting on mostly is the lack of scientific, journalistic, ethical and skills based professionalism we see among those that we count on to discover and import the truth to the masses. I have nothing against pop-science as my above reading list would bear out, what I have a problem with is when people put things in print or media without imparting the actual relevance of the information being presented as it relates to a causal or logical context. When people sensationalize or mislead either to support their career, ideological beliefs or because they lack the professionalism to do their job is what I have a problem with and I see that being all too common among the younger generation raised on the current advances in social and mass media. We've raised a Y generation of zombie slackers and extremist thugs.

Cordwainer said...

Also, I think I would rather have a political system where politicians fake their creds and are in bed with snakes than one where they actually exert authoritarian control over my life any day. France may be boring and have it's economic and social problems but at least the government programs in place by and large actually do the job they were designed to do.

The government can be corrupt as hell and the economy can be messed up as hell but as long as the government doesn't infringe on human rights to a disastrous degree and is effective in taking care of the welfare of the populous I could care less if they don't live up to all their lousy campaign promises or get caught doing something unethical.

Rarely, does the government have any real control over the economy or employment rates. Economic planning and Keynesian policies are really only good at certain things such as:

1. Keeping overhead low for the private sector by taking over services that the private sector or consumers would have to pay for themselves in the form of credit they don't have as opposed to taxes.

2. Providing financing for businesses, schools, private contracts and public projects that benefit consumers and the private sector.

Ayn Rand nuts in this country like to point out that the New Deal didn't change the overall employment rates during the Depression but the reality is that the programs that were enacted did give people social security benefits, rent control, agricultural programs and tax benefits that allowed people to keep a roof over their heads and their belly's full through a combination of benefits and revolving door employment via public work projects. Employment figures back then did not properly account for seasonal or part time work that government projects and government funded community programs created. Also the real benefits of New Deal legislation did not become apparent until the 1940's with all of the benefits that public projects, welfare benefits and benefits to business and labor actually took effect on a mostly recovered global market. The result was a far more capable nation when it came to the ability to exploit resources and a for more streamlined and financially solvent private sector that along with strides in technology and education during the pre-war and post-ware era and the fact that most of the world was still rebuilding after the war led to the U.S. having such a dominant economic position. Case in point my Grandfather already had some college education when he entered the Army and then became and officer in the Army Air Corps, afterwards he got and MBA using the GI Bill and went to work for Ford.

America's position in the world declined due to other nations adopting and improving our strategies in welfare policies, and support of business, labor and education. Unlike the U.S. they employed economic planning and distributionism to maintain their declining markets for manufactured goods and advance the rise of service based markets. Meanwhile America played around with "VooDoo Economics" and kept antiquated and poorly run welfare programs in place. Rather than improving and creating new systems that supported the rich and poor in ways that kept the middle class solvent we created a system that has led to a shrinking middle class and a shrinking upper class.

Geoffrey S H said...

All good points, I wonder what an 'alien' style of technological development would look like?

I sometimes wonder if it would be possible to do the rise of such a civilisation, through their bronze age, medieval period etc, through to space travel...

jollyreaper said...

The question is not whether jollyreapers idealism and views are outdated, immature or politically radical it is rather that the question should be "why are those old hoary arguments still relevant". Particularly when scientific meta-analysis and evidence has largely found jollyreapers views to be largely unfounded or in error.

I can't tell if this is cord quoting a tony comment that's not preserved in the archive or if it's the reply. That's a pretty sweeping statement regardless.

jollyreaper said...

As a rule of thumb, I'd say that if it seems more refined, and with less "stuff" visible, it will look more advanced.

That's one good starting point. Another might be that efficiency is no longer the driving principle in design. They have so much surplus power that they can indulge in extravagance. Consider a rocket with a fusion torch vs. the best chemical rockets we have. The mass budget for nonessentials could be quite a bit higher. Imagine explaining to the Wright Brothers that in a few decades you'd be sitting in an easy chair being served cocktails while flying above breathable atmosphere in a pressurized vessel. They'd scoff at the very notion of it as impractical with the materials and powerplant available. Then, eyes growing wide, they ask "So what do they have in 50 years? And how do they manage to turn a profit running this airline?" And then the time traveler blushes and admits airlines are still losing money hand over fist. Then the time traveler mentions the TSA and the Wrights decide to park their airplane behind the shop and go back to fixing bicycles.

Cordwainer said...

As to the argument for and against "market externalities" I have to agree that externalities don't exist, jolly. Just because a business does not calculate the cost of something into it's balance sheet does not mean it is accounted for somewhere down the line. The actuaries that finance and insure those businesses often do account for those costs when performing their services which in turn does play into a businesses overhead. Stock brokers and mortgage brokers calculated the worth of businesses stocks and the earning potential of a plot of land by calculating many factors including the future yield of resources on that land.

Even if something is "incalculable" people tend to find a way to put a price on it one way or another. Whether that is an accurate price is debatable but much of what goes on in the market is speculative and not fixed in stone. Over time methods for valuation get created and adopted and eventually discarded and replaced by new ones.

Cordwainer said...

Efficiency is rarely the single driving principle in design, jolly. Cost, versatility, flexibility, inter-operability, ease of use, ease of maintenance, market appeal, warranty benefits and quality of service are just some of the factors involved in design and sale of a product. If cost and efficiency was the only thing that mattered with designs then nobody would be buying Cisco Systems electronics.

Cordwainer said...

If we want to look at how the above things might influence how aliens might design things differently then you would really have to take a look at the culture, politics and availability of natural resources that an alien race might possess.

That being the case one really doesn't have to get that involved in world building for the sake of the story, as long as the story is engaging most people aren't going to care.

Cordwainer said...

If your aliens are Communists then they might have really junky People's spaceships and overbuilt designs for warships, for instance.

Geoffrey S H said...

...and if they're even vaguely Teutonic then they'll over-engineer EVERYTHING. And annoy everyone with how irritatingly safe all their equipment is.

jollyreaper said...

Externalities don't exist? I don't even know where to go with this. It's like trying to talk math with someone who argues there are only three elementary arithmetic operators. Maybe we are just using different terminology and the subtraction you deny you call reverse addition?

People will always haggle over price. My tree falls on your house, you will claim I owe you for repairs. I say you replaced a damaged room with a palatial extension. Someone who agrees with the idea of the injured party getting compensated might say you are trying to cheat me. Someone else might think I am trying to cheat you. Just because a principle is agreed to doesn't mean each case will be easy.

But there's a difference between disagreeing over whether a debt has been paid and the idea of whether debts exist. Every business will tell you that they are operating by the book but what they won't tell you is they paid off the editor. Just look at Enron. It couldn't have happened because businesses pay auditors. Yes, but those auditors can be corrupted. Do you deny the existence of regulatory capture?

What about moral hazards? If a rich men's son knows daddy will bail him out, will he take greater risks? If an investment bank knows they are too big to fail, will they make riskier plays, knowing the government will bail them out? How does this differ from an externality in your book? Externality is defined as the cost or benefit affecting a party who did not incur the cost or benefit. I could see you arguing that such a thing is paid for, i.e. drivers are giving tacit approval for their own maiming or death for the privilege of using the roadways. I could argue that there's always a risk but past a certain point the odds become unfair. Any car can crash but spontaneous fires from faulty ignition switches go beyond reasonably assumed risk. If that weren't the case, we would never see recalls.

Your line about risk being factored into the price by the brokers. No. They check off the due diligence box but that doesn't mean it counts. BP had the required disaster plan for their deep water wells in the gulf. The plan had contingencies for feeling with seals and arctic wildlife and numbers for experts who had been dead for years. It was a plan on file but not anything that meant a damn when things went pear-shaped.

Katzen said...

wow. Lot's of stuff I want to say but I think this will be a rant since I have only a hour or two to spare.

I'm very much in the "millennial generation" with a huge emphasis on electronics and computer technology. I like dubstep, video games, played with programing, game making, webpage making and I have been online since the age of 7.
I am now very used to pulling out my cellphone when I want to research anything anytime anywhere. Me and my wife will often swap stories and info as we are talking. I find it funny when people saying "playing" on your smartphone is bad. On that smartphone could be a book, classes, news or a conversation with you partner.

but I also am caught strangely in the "old ways" I grew up with a father who's was born in the late 1940's. He didn't see a computer till he was older than I am now. He's the one who drilled into me the K.I.S.S principle (keep it simple stupid!) which I preach myself.
I work on helicopters that were designed before the Vietnam war. There are still some that carry tail numbers from that war. Some of our equipment is equally old. There are days I come "home" from a 12 hour shift covered in grease, hydro fluid, jp-8 and the accumulated dust and dirt of dozens of hours of flight time.

Reading old Sci-Fi novels they seem incredibly short sighted. I don't blame the writers. I tried to write sci-fi books. Never went anywhere. I though look back and some ideas that I thought would take at least another decade to hit were coming up in less than a year. I also realized I can't write a decent plot.

I wonder will we soon be able to make almost anything a currency? pay in electronic slices of gold, silver, oil, water and crypto currency (crypto sounds like a really good slang term) everyman a bussinessman?

also I can think of one rationalization for a giant mecha. It's visibility as a giant strategic asset like when a B2 bomber is moved to a base in Japan or Kuwait in response to tension. It would never be considered the majority military but it's the stick. In my own story idea they act as diplomacy "chess pieces" and as prize fighters in the governments (when a battle only risks a dozen or so pilots it becomes easy for the public to swallow) across a solar system.

Thucydides said...

Lpoking at our own history, in general we see technology becoming larger and more efficient until it is overtaken by some entirely new system, which once again starts out small but gradually becomes larger and more efficient (or leads to objects, devices and systems which are larger and more efficient).

Consider ships, starting with small oared vessels like Pentakonters, then evolving to larger , Triemes and even larger ships identified as "Fours", "Fives" and so on (many people believe this is either by the banks of oars the ship had, or the number of oarsmen per oar. In any event, these ships were much larger than previous ones). Oared ships continued to dominate until the 1500's in the Med.

Now the story is not quite as neat or clear cut as all that; late Roman ships were much smaller once opposing Empires were destroyed since there was no utility for giant warships, for example.

Sailing ships underwent a similar evolution from Cogs to the giant "First Rate" "Line of Battle ship", before metal framing and armour swept that away (Yes, steam power also factored in, but ma ny ships from the 1850s right until almost the 1900's still were laid down with sailing rigs).

So some technology will take us into interplanetary space. Ships built with that technology will become more larger and more capable, up to the point that a radical new technology becomes capable of matching the cost or efficiency of the old, while offering new benefits (oared warships and merchant ships need large crews, while a cog can carry the same cargo with a far smaller crew embarked).

There will also be discontinuities. The Royal Navy had the largest and most efficient fleet of "Line of Battle" ships by the end of the Napoleonic wars, but the end of the wars and the emphasis on "police" duties related to suppressing the slave trade laid up the large ships in favour of frigates. Future space ships may evolve or devolve based on some sort of economic imperative (Mercury becomes a great centre of economic power, so small ships capable of shedding the heat load of close solar orbits become popular...).

So this could be a general outline for a future history

Anonymous said...

Been away for a week; lots of new comments!

Ok, um, as to the 'look' of future tech, generally sleeker, more reliable, and with more 'bells and whistles'. The less hands on needed the more 'advanced' it may seem.

As far as alien tech, fashion and 'style' might be a good start. Most Human tech and mechanical architecture is functional and is very recognizable. We like tall, straight edges, perfect circles, and blocky housings where aerodynamic curve are absolutely needed. Aliens might see the oval as needed in everything possible; or they might feel that if it doesn't have a mirrored surface it's too ugly for words. It could be as simple as incorporating a logo into everything, or as complex as making everything green.

As far as biased media, national short-comings, and the state of education in various countries, I believe that long term trends in idealogical-driven policies reaching back to the 1960's are making their effects felt. These idealologies have lead to unforseen consequences that have generally made things worse. That being said, the 60's did give us many positive things, but it also gave us a growing dependance on idealology and less on rational thought and analysis. Hopefully these trends will reverse themselves before they lead to disaster, but I'm not that confident about our political types being that practical.

Ferrell

Anonymous said...

Ok, that should be "...where aerodynamic curves are NOT absolutely needed..."

Ferrell

Katzen said...

just a thought with alien tech and style. How they see hear and touch would be big influence on how something is designed. Such as eyes that can see uv light. To us something might seem pristine white, but to them it would be as flamboyant as mardi gras.

Rick said...

Believe it or not, a new front page post is up: Worldbuilding and the Hazards of Canon Fire.

Vladislav Yakov said...

We Can supply Aviation Kerosene,Jet fuel (JP 54-A1,5), Diesel (Gas Oil) and Fuel Oil D2, D6,ETC in FOB/Rotterdam only, serious buyer should contact or if you have serious buyers my seller is ready to close this deal fast contact us below:now base email us (neftegazagent@yandex.ru)

PRODUCT AVAILABLE IN ROTTERDAM/ CI DIP AND PAY IN SELLER EX-SHORE TANK.

Russia D2 50,000-150,000 Metric Tons FOB Rotterdam Port.

JP54 5000,000 Barrels per Month FOB Rotterdam.

JA1 Jet Fuel 10,000,000 Barrels FOB Rotterdam.

D6 Virgin Fuel Oil 800,000,000 Gallon FOB Rotterdam.

E-mail: neftegazagent@yandex.ru
E: neftegazagent@mail.ru
E: neftegazagent@yahoo.com

Best Regards
(Mr.) Vladislav Yakov
Skype: neftegazagent

Thank You

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 359 of 359   Newer› Newest»