Paul Birch and Mass Stream applications for the real world

[Rynn]

Well for starters USSR and USA would have reason for another space race.

Why? The space race was predominately about preventing the other side get a lead on potential militarisation of space. After the Moon landings it cooled off because the former was achieved and the public interest was waning (not to mention the cost).

With regards to prototypes, planned missions and mass production: it might have worked, you can't say it definitely would have, and it would have cost a hell of a lot before it got any cheaper. Yes mass produced space craft would be cheaper per unit but it still requires a larger investment for little return. Also to quote myself from earlier: a conceptual plan and a finished product are not the same thing by a long shot. Technologies might not develop as planned, engineering solutions may be more difficult than previously thought, the unknown unknowns will cause delays and extra obstacles. You have to be highly skeptical of any estimated budget and timeline for a megaproject. Look at the ITER project which has required cost revisions upwards of several billion.

This is all getting a bit tangential. Yes it could have been physically possible to pursue a far greater manned presence in space but at huge cost with uncertainty over how technology and economics would have progressed and no strongly foreseeable ROI greater than that which could be gained funding technological development on Earth. Sure some space technologies spin off but a lot more comes from Earth-side work.

To try and pull the conversation back on topic: the epic space adventure of the golden age of SF didn't happen. IMO for good reasons, others might think they were bad reasons but w/e. The point is that the space narrative hasn't been a strong part of western culture for quite a while. It's been two generations since someone has even been on the Moon. Cyperpunk is the only major form of SF I can think of that has had "big ideas" without space. Some transhumanism does but it's often tied up with New Space Opera. So if we want big ideas IMO we have to stop trying to bring back the big ideas of the past because they are small now.

Incidentally Charles Stross covered this topic a couple of years ago in his blog, I think his take on it is very interesting:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-sta...t-is-.html

[omega_tyrant]

To me, it's kind of a shame that society at large has- how should I say, not necessarily "given up" on all things space related, but put them far, far, far on the back burner. My guess is that it has to do with the same issues surrounding flying cars. Back in the "good old days" of sci fi, writers would assign a date, usually "the year 2000" (insert spooky music) when all of these wondrous inventions would be mainstream and in everyday use. People thought that by 2000, we would have Moon bases, manned Mars exploration, and flying cars. When none of these things happened, people did not just become disappointed, they completely threw the ideas out. Witness the de-funding of NASA and the space program by recent US administrations. I have to believe that not getting results in the timeframe that was predicted certainly played a part in the decision.

In my observations, the general thought pattern went something like : "Well since flying cars and Moon bases didn't happen by 2000, they will never happen… They're IMPOSSIBLE!" Surprisingly, it's not just the general public that says this, science writers and some scientists will say the same thing.

I blame the whole behavior on "prognosticators," people who assuredly assign specific dates for when certain breakthrough technologies are bound to happen, get everyone hyped up for their inevitable arrival…and then they don't happen. Of course, these prophets don't usually account for things like economic collapses, natural disasters, wars, new discoveries of tighter-than-expected physical limits, or any other monkey wench that can stall progress. Dalex and Rynn, both of you already mentioned this, but a lot of breakthrough tech that happened around 2000, like the Internet and mobile phones, were not expected at all, while most of the expected technologies did not come to pass. What saddens me is that because those techs didn't come to pass at that particular moment, most folks now think that they will never be, even though we don't really have a lot of reasons to doubt them otherwise.

This is why I get annoyed with people like Ray Kurzweil. Ray has become successful by, in my opinion, hyping up the general public with false promises of future technologies in a relatively short timeframe. My fear is that, come 2045 or so, when his mature Drexlerian nanotech, superhuman AI, and other things don't happen, most people will react the same way that they did in 2000, by giving up on trying to pursue these techs, even if no new scientific evidence exists to doubt them. Of course, it is completely possible that other new techs that we didn't even think about will arise. Still, it is upsetting to see things like space tech getting de-funded or thrown under the bus because they didn't come about at some specific point in time given by some hype-generating false prophets.

Whew! Getting off my soapbox now.

[Rynn]

I agree, the prophetic nature really undermines any speculation. Along with the dates I get really annoyed by how easy things are always portrayed, as though a hand wavy time line of A to B to C is truly reflective of any scientific development. There will always be unforseen developments that will either speed up or slow down whatever it is one is talking about. It's never as simple as simply taking an idea and doing it as stated.

[omega_tyrant]

I agree, the prophetic nature really undermines any speculation. Along with the dates I get really annoyed by how easy things are always portrayed, as though a hand wavy time line of A to B to C is truly reflective of any scientific development. There will always be unforseen developments that will either speed up or slow down whatever it is one is talking about. It's never as simple as simply taking an idea and doing it as stated.

Yes you're right. It kind of reminds me of the early computer scientists who said that in 20 years (from the 1940's) that computers would "only" weigh "a few" tonnes, and take up "only" one small room. Or the belief of some in the 19th century that all possible flying machines would have to be based around the mechanics used in bird wings. Rarely does any tech develop according to a strict, rigid pattern of predictability over a steady timescale (although Moore's Law has held up nicely so far.)

[iancampbell]

Yep. There's an even earlier case. Some Texas sheriff in the 19th century, about the telephone he had just been shown: "Someday, every town will have one."

Computers again: "Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, 1949