Paul Birch and Mass Stream applications for the real world

[omega_tyrant]

I have been spending some time reading through Birch's materials. I think his ideas about Mass Stream, orbital rings, etc, are very good, and don't appear to violate any laws of physics (although I'm not a scientist, so I don't know for sure.) It also doesn't appear to require any radical breakthrough tech that is not already in existence to produce. What do you think is the main reason why we don't have practical Mass Stream tech? What are the biggest obstacles that are preventing our adaptation of this tech?

Curiously, I also don't really see this tech being discussed, either in scientific circles or in sci-fi.

[Drashner1]

I think the biggest real world reason is that our current space infrastructure is very much built on rockets and on operating in a very conservative manner. Mass-beam based systems would be a very substantial departure from the current 'direction' of space development, even if we include beanstalks in that direction, and require a pretty substantial up front investment that probably only becomes justified if the builders are already pretty sure that there is going to be demand for the level of ability before they even start. There's also issues of trusting large, expensive structure to be supported by inherently unstable systems. Probably gives people pause at this point in history.

As far as the tech being discussed in scientific circles or in sci-fi....

Birch's papers were originally published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, and were also referenced by Robert L. Forward in his book Future Magic (revised and reprinted as Indistinguishable from Magic) and in his novel Starquake (which includes a space fountain built on a neutron star!). Frederick Pohl also included Lofstrom Loops in one of his HeeChee Universe books (The Annals of the HeeChee).

Note that these works all mostly date from the 80s and 90s. Since the start of the 21st century (and for whatever reason), I've noticed a substantial drop in the level of 'new' ideas in spaceflight, let alone 'big and new' ideas in spaceflight. The focus seems to have shifted to biology/medicine and cyberspace, even in pro-space publications like Analog SF. Which I find kind of disappointing really.

Todd

[JohnnyYesterday]

Todd, the dwindling of Big Ideas in near-term SF is why Project Hieroglyph was founded. http://hieroglyph.asu.edu

[Dalex]

I have been spending some time reading through Birch's materials. I think his ideas about Mass Stream, orbital rings, etc, are very good, and don't appear to violate any laws of physics (although I'm not a scientist, so I don't know for sure.) It also doesn't appear to require any radical breakthrough tech that is not already in existence to produce. What do you think is the main reason why we don't have practical Mass Stream tech? What are the biggest obstacles that are preventing our adaptation of this tech?

Curiously, I also don't really see this tech being discussed, either in scientific circles or in sci-fi.

One reason is that any project based on Mass Stream tech is inherently a mega project. That means that it requires significant investment and that it is very, very long term.
These are things that politicians are afraid of.
Even if you gathered sufficient political support various pressure groups mostly of environmental type are bound to oppose the project.
Some of them will try to block construction others may even try direct attack.

You also have to explain to electorate why are you using incredible amount of resources on something what will not touch their lives immediately.

Then you have to deal with local population, most of them won't probably want to live next to space elevator or similar structure.

And after that there will be international opposition because sooner or later someone is going to say it is meant to be somehow used against them.

In other words it's nearly impossible to do in current socio-political climate.

[Rynn]

A big reason why these ideas aren't being actively pursued is that they are conceptual ideas. They may have some detail and even some good speculative designs but ask any engineer if the path from paper-to-product is an easy 1:1 mapping and they'll laugh hysterically.

Whilst things like launch loops/beanstalks etc promise great efficiency and payloads over conventional rockets they would require a staggeringly high budget over a significant time to figure out how to build and then build. Rockets are perfectly adequate for our space needs and wants at the moment. There just isn't enough demand, economic or otherwise, to justify the expense of such a project.

On a separate note has there really been a decline in SF big ideas or has there been a decline in SF set in space? I've read various blog posts by SF authors in recent years on this issue and there have been changes in SF. I wonder if the disillusionment felt by authors and fans is because we are living in the future of past SF and the former makes the latter look quant and often silly.

[Dalex]

I wonder if the disillusionment felt by authors and fans is because we are living in the future of past SF and the former makes the latter look quant and often silly.

Well I think every one has to admit that world we live in is a little underwhelming compared to science fiction.
Also unlike writers from beginning of 20th century modern writers can't write about live on Mars or Venus or anywhere in Sol without going into alternate reality (yes there is Europa and other icy moons but those aren't offering much for common reader).

Plus we are still stuck in LEO and we have detected no signals of alien civilizations. That is for many people a disappointment.


If you don't believe me ask yourself. How would space exploration continue if we found bacteria on Mars?

[Rynn]

Well I think every one has to admit that world we live in is a little underwhelming compared to science fiction.
Also unlike writers from beginning of 20th century modern writers can't write about live on Mars or Venus or anywhere in Sol without going into alternate reality (yes there is Europa and other icy moons but those aren't offering much for common reader).

Plus we are still stuck in LEO and we have detected no signals of alien civilizations. That is for many people a disappointment.


If you don't believe me ask yourself. How would space exploration continue if we found bacteria on Mars?

I typed a reply to specific points you made but navigated away by accident. Short version is that I disagree quite a bit with the unquestioned assumption this argument uses: that the future = space and everything else is underwhelming. There's no reason why we can't have fantastic, big-idea SF that doesn't involve spaceships and Mars colonies.

Incidentally I doubt bacteria on Mars would change space exploration much other than to provoke a short lived public interest, a longer term series of academic discussion and a change in policy for future probes to carry more microbiology equipment. Oh and it would mean that in future discussions about future space colonisation exo-environmentalist arguments will get a higher priority.

[Dalex]

I typed a reply to specific points you made but navigated away by accident. Short version is that I disagree quite a bit with the unquestioned assumption this argument uses: that the future = space and everything else is underwhelming. There's no reason why we can't have fantastic, big-idea SF that doesn't involve spaceships and Mars colonies.

Incidentally I doubt bacteria on Mars would change space exploration much other than to provoke a short lived public interest, a longer term series of academic discussion and a change in policy for future probes to carry more microbiology equipment. Oh and it would mean that in future discussions about future space colonisation exo-environmentalist arguments will get a higher priority.

Nowhere in my post I said that only space exploration counts but compare our technology with that from Space Odyssey.
We don't have Turing grade AI, interplanetary vessels, moon colony or causal travel to orbit.
And consider this:when Clarke wrote his books all of that seemed feasible.

Of course instead of that we have internet, genetic modification (also present later in SO series) and lots of other stuff.

As for bacteria on Mars. Lets imagine this scenario: Vikings land and their experiments confirm presence of life. Do you honestly think that NASAs budget would get cut so much and that we remained in LEO if that happened?

[Rynn]

Nowhere in my post I said that only space exploration counts but compare our technology with that from Space Odyssey.
We don't have Turing grade AI, interplanetary vessels, moon colony or causal travel to orbit.
And consider this:when Clarke wrote his books all of that seemed feasible.

Of course instead of that we have internet, genetic modification (also present later in SO series) and lots of other stuff.

Whilst you didn't explicitly state it all your focus has been on space related topics. Is isn't a personal attack btw, I think this is a very common attitude. But in reality the future of the past was never going to be space. We live in a time with robot assassins, extended minds, near instant communication and retrieval of knowledge, a world in which democracy is becoming the norm although economic disparity is trending towards oligarchy, countries like China have gone from famine and poverty strewn backwaters to economic superpowers etc etc.

So yeah, if SF has run out of "big ideas" in terms of visionary futures it's because the visions of the past (space) were never that visionary, aspirational sure but not a reality. The cyberpunk and transhumanist movements have come and gone (or at least the last one is heading out) and we might not have seen a big thing yet because of how these past visions have turned out with regards to real events.

As for bacteria on Mars. Lets imagine this scenario: Vikings land and their experiments confirm presence of life. Do you honestly think that NASAs budget would get cut so much and that we remained in LEO if that happened?

Well I can't speak for the time of the Viking landers as space science was more popular but yeah it wouldn't surprise me if history progressed pretty much the same for the reasons I've stated above. Why would you think it would be different? Space exploration, especially manned, is very very hard and very very expensive. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars over the last several decades technologies haven't developed to the point where those two statements aren't true.

[Dalex]

Well I can't speak for the time of the Viking landers as space science was more popular but yeah it wouldn't surprise me if history progressed pretty much the same for the reasons I've stated above. Why would you think it would be different? Space exploration, especially manned, is very very hard and very very expensive. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars over the last several decades technologies haven't developed to the point where those two statements aren't true.

Well for starters USSR and USA would have reason for another space race. Technology for interplanetary travel already existed even if only in prototype phase (NERVA) also launch vehicles that could deliver parts for said mission existed unlike now.

As for cost of manned space exploration consider this: some industries (car manufacturing for example) show what is called economies of scale.
For example making one car in your garage will cost you much more per unit produced than if you had factory.
Same goes for spaceships. Once you start making these things on "assembly line" cost will get lower.
In addition astronaut can stay in orbit longer and do more work if he lives in space station with artificial gravity. We don't have that kind of space station but we could if we made sufficient investment into production facilities. You also have to think about in situ manufacturing which would be possible with enough people and automatiization, that would get costs lower too.

Don't forget about space tourist industry (yes I know it would be marginal compared to costs but it could provide some money).
Eventually importation of certain metals (like platinum in reasonable quantities because we don't want the market to collapse) would became possible.
Technologies developed as direct result of said efforts would enhance our lives significantly. For example flight control and automation of space industry would lead to better electronics, material science would need to answer new challenges arising from hostile environment and so on.

Yes I know it would require long term effort but if life on Mars was discovered by Viking probes then space industry would not stagnate at least not for so long.

As for feasibility, this is report of Space Task Group chaired by Spiro Agnew Report

In report cost of $8-10 billion is mentioned per year in 1969 dollars for Mars mission to happen in eighties. Of course there would be overruns so I guess 20 billion puts us in save territory yes it is much but that is cost for space station, moon base and several landings on Mars.