Requiem for the Once-Imagined Future

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "The underwhelming Discovery mission has the Wall Street Journal Online's Real Time columnists lamenting the space program's failure to realize the sort of intergalactic exploration they once imagined as kids through the works of Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein. Considering the Viking landers were digging around Martain soil back in 1976, 'we figured the place would be necklaced with orbiters and cris-crossed by rovers by now. Maybe there'd even be astronauts (or cosmonauts or taikonauts) tracing the courses of unimaginably ancient rivers.' Instead, we get a mission whose highlights were 'a) it came back; and b) an astronaut pulled bits of cloth out from between tiles.' At this rate, the columnists fear the innovations of the future won't be much more exciting: 'Maybe Real Time 2030 will fret about how our college kids do little more than steal full-res holographic porn when they're not getting their financial identities stolen by cyber-jihadists eager to build more backpack nukes.'"

Comments

The crossroads of my generation

[Skyshadow]

It seems to me as if the "future" is waiting for another kick, the sort of boot-in-the-pants that we saw twice in the last century. Right now, it's stuck. There are a lot of real Buck Rogers-style things that could be going on if only people seriously thought they were possible, if only there was a spark that could get us up and moving again. But that's not going to happen on its own, we need to figure out how to move again.

I dunno, maybe part of the problem is that progress just outran the global society's ability to adjust at some point -- that definately seems to be the case with a lot of the more disaffected people both in the US and overseas. IMO, the crazed religious zealot in Iran and the crazed Kansas schoolboard member have a lot of root causes in common. Those wackos are extreme examples, granted, but it seems like they're also symptomatic of larger societal problems.

I'm ready to pick up and keep moving, though, and I think a lot of people of my generation are. We never saw a moon landing; it happened before we were born and, frankly, even if we went back it would seem like old hat. "Yeah, Earthrise. Great, never seen that before". We read about this shit in the *history* books, man. But that's not a bad thing: I suspect a lot of us wouldn't find the concept of, say, mining asteroids as exotic as the Boomers would, and maybe that's all we really need. And hey, if that's possible, if that improves our lot, maybe it'll finally be that human advance where, once it starts, it just continues on and on.

Of course, speaking of the Boomers, I fear that my generation (I'm 28) might be one of those unlucky historical examples of one which didn't get to do jack shit because they were so busy catering to the needs of their wealthy elders while trying to patch up the disasterous debts they left us. By the time they start to croak en masse it'll be too late to do anything all that interesting -- we'll be too old and too unimaginative, left only with the shadow of the dreams we once entertained.

Honestly (and sadly), I'm pretty sure that's the direction we're headed in. Happily, however, I also believe it's not too late to change that. That's why I support ideas like the Space Elevator; it's the sort of kick that might get us out of this funk and allow us to overcome the fate of being a generation the just paid too much for their houses.

Re:The crossroads of my generation

[gcatullus]

Sadly the "kick in the pants" has always been things like a world war or having a well funded arch enemy, like the old US vs. USSR enimity. Adversity breeds inovation. Prosperity breeds complacency. So, be careful what you wish for.

Re:The crossroads of my generation

[Rei]

What I don't get is why the author sees the shuttle mission as having anything to do with the Mars mission. What, in his vision of the future, did he not picture people being in LEO as well?

We do send rovers and orbiters to Mars, all the time - at any point in time, there's usually 2-4 operational rovers or orbiters. So I don't know what he was talking about when he mentioned that he was expecting to see Rovers crisscrossing the planet. Perhaps he wants more capable rovers (ignoring that the current ones gave us a treasure trove of info)? Then don't divert money into manned spaceflight, which is incredibly expensive. Even as is, it won't be long before we get to see Mars Science Laboratory on the Red Planet - a rover the size of an SUV which can take drive around, take core samples, do complete isotopic and minerological determination of samples, and even burn coatings off a rock with a laser from a distance to do spectral analysis.

Speaking of manned spaceflight, his desire to have people trudging over the red planet ignores one sad, but true fact: chemical energy density isn't getting any better. We somewhat peaked out on fuel potentials in the 1960s. Now, there have been small improvements - for example, strained-ring hydrocarbons may replace kerosene - and there are some interesting "high ISP/high density" fuels that they're trying to stabilize (such as alane - stabilized aluminum hydride); however, the sky is not the limit as far as fuel density goes. And, as chemical fuels look to be our way of getting off the planet any time soon...

So, what can we advance, as far as getting payload off the Earth is concerned? We've improved engines, but there's only so much performance that improved heat management and refined shapes will get you. We can advance materials, but while we have some great "potential" materials on the horizon (such as nanotube composites and CVD diamond), and superalloys have been coming down in price, we're not the leaps-and-bounds beyond top-tech 1960s materials that would help.

So, in short, lugging payloads into space on disposable rockets remains expensive. Reusables were supposed to change this, as fuel is cheap; however, at least our first-gen reusable had serious maintenance problems (will a next-gen reusable be better? We'll have to wait and see).

This is simply the problems on getting large payloads off of Earth. Getting humans to Mars and back safely requires a complex system of precursor missions, engine and power plant development, habitation R&D, lots and lots of shielding research (the "bremsstrahlung issue" from GCR still hasn't been solved), getting reliable long-term use versions of *almost all* of the things that keep breaking on ISS (oxygen generation, water reuse, spin stabilization, etc - you can't just ship up a new one), "large mars entry craft" development (the atmosphere is nothing like ours, and we've only dropped in small craft, which are easier to deal with), dust handling (Mars dust is particularly nasty, with its electrostatic potential and tiny grain size), return fuel generation (optional), and dozens of other issues that the Apollo astronauts never had to deal with.

In short, the Mars mission is much more complex than Apollo, and yet, our rocket technology, bound by physical constraints and the requisite constraints of a spiral development process, has not come that far. Hence, the cost is high, the immediate payback low, and thus securing funding for it has, to this date, not occurred. It's not a difficult thing to understand. Meanwhile, our various robotic probes and telescopes keep dumping back copious amounts of valuable data to Earth, while tech keeps on advancing at its "slow and steady" pace.

Re:The crossroads of my generation

[CompSci101]

I will take exception with what you had to say:

The United States suffered *none* of the disaster that was World War II with regard to our infrastructure and general populace. In fact, our economy got such a kick out of the production the war spurred that it put the US into what many people consider its Golden Age: the 1950s.

Eastern Europe was *devastated* by World War II, and was under the control of the Soviet Union for much of the Cold War. The result being that the area never truly recovered from the war and only now under the European Union is seeing any progress. Western Europe was also badly damaged, but had many important advantages: it had the United States to bolster its regrowth, and the population loss wasn't as great as in the East. Europe is still second fiddle to the United States economically, and will probably never regain its former position in the world with the rising economies of the Far East.

The United States basically lucked out of WWII (though I don't say that with any intention of diminishing the accomplishment or the sacrifice), and relative to the rest of the world, we got off very easy. The political unrest in the aftermath of the Cold War, by the way, is what *we* are dealing with today in the form terrorism -- you can't fight secret wars on the backs of poor people without engendering serious animosity. The threat of nuclear annihilation was actually *more* unlikely during the Cold War than it is today -- terrorist groups might not hesitate to spark a nuclear war or use a nuclear weapon, as they have very little to lose relative to the former Soviet empire.

forget space

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to talk about the short commings of the predicted future then forget space where is my ROCKET CAR!

full-res you say?

[vertinox]

Maybe Real Time 2030 will fret about how our college kids do little more than steal full-res holographic porn

Bah! If it doesn't have full tactile neural input, then I'm not interested.

There is hope!

[Ken Hall]

I, for one, am heartened by how much the shuttle has come to resemble the Millenium Falcon. At least in the reliability department.

Don't Forget C

[MrCopilot]

Instead, we get a mission whose highlights were 'a) it came back; and b) an astronaut pulled bits of cloth out from between tiles.

Lest we forget c.)Took out the trash.

Re:Why Mars?

[Skyshadow]

Read "The Case for Mars" by Roberty Zubrin. It basically demonstrates that the moon isn't actually an easier starting point and that Mars is, in most ways, far more worth the effort.

Re:Far greater things lie ahead

[Phoenixredux]

I disagree. One thing that the English language does not lack is superlatives, although sometimes individual speakers forget them and use the same ones over and over. For example, some superlatives inspired by this discussion of "transhumanism" may include: over-blown, phantasmagoric, fantasy, delusional, raving, and lunacy. Don't worry - there are many, many more. The English language holds a depth and breadth greater, in many instances, than those famed Martian canals.

The problem is power

[SlayerofGods]

Seriously, we need a new power source. As long as we're burning shit to get into space we're never going to be able get anywhere.

Dear Sci Fi Whiners

[ackthpt]

Considering the Viking landers were digging around Martain soil back in 1976, 'we figured the place would be necklaced with orbiters and cris-crossed by rovers by now. Maybe there'd even be astronauts (or cosmonauts or taikonauts) tracing the courses of unimaginably ancient rivers.' Instead, we get a mission whose highlights were 'a) it came back; and b) an astronaut pulled bits of cloth out from between tiles.'

Sadly, it appears most sci-fi writers and buffs were somewhat lacking in the taste of reality department. Economics, i.e. business potential are more likely to drive space exploration than scientific interest. While we're seeing fledgling efforts, it's still a pretty iffy thing to leave a perfectly good planet behind to build a house on the Moon or Mars.

Seems much of the Sci-fi I've read was more a vehicle for another story, i.e. it's not about the lasers stupid, it's the exploration of man's inhumanity to man, sorta thing.

Looking at how ultimately fragile our space crafts are, and the terrific amount of stored energy it takes to escape the Earth's surface, the one thing that should come home to people who expect Buck Rogers is this isn't as easy as putting pen to paper and scribbling up interplantetary travel.

Sadly, the real drama of what has transpired to get this far isn't as entertaining (although The Right Stuff and Apollo 11 took a stab at it) as Star Wars.

This just in!

[swelke]

This just in! As a way to get into space, the space shuttle sucks! Wow, that's amazing. Do you mean that all of those glowing reviews of it I've heard for as long as I can remember (I'm 23) were bull?

Seriously though, a lot of science fiction writers have been warning us about just what is happening. If we focus on "solving all our problems on the ground first" then we'll never move into space properly. The same will happen if we're too pussyfooted to accept the occasional death due to space travel. It's already safer than any major frontier exploration in history. (I'm not saying we should waste astronauts, but that doesn't mean we should quit going into orbit for 2+ years just because a few die either.) If we don't go out and build something semi-permanent beyond Earth (the Moon or the asteroid belt, maybe Mars) pretty soon, we're going to end up screwing things up on Earth badly enough (economic collapse, ecological disaster, evil killer robots, whatever) that we can't go to space. In the long run, having groups of humans separated by a few million miles is probably the best way to keep us from killing each other all the time.

Physical limitations to the universe

[revscat]

I think this highlights the fundamental difficulty we face in getting elsewhere in the universe, namely the difficulty of getting enough energy to move stuff around. This is not an easy nut to crack, and despite optimistic predictions it is quite possible that it is one that is insoluble. Yes, we have had many scientific breakthroughs throughout human history. Yes, naysayers are frequently proven wrong. But "past success is no indicator of future performance", as the disclaimer says, and I think this is no different.

Until we are able to get bodies of non-trivial mass to speeds that are an integer percentage of light speed we will for all practical purposes be stuck on this zealot-infested rock. Getting men and women into space and having them survive is extremely difficult even for the short periods of time the STS is in orbit. This shows that allowing them to survive for months on end is a nigh-impossible task without some fundamental advances, and there are no areas in physics that we can look to for hope in this regard.

Yes, it's possible we may one day colonize Mars, Kim Stanly Robinson style. But I doubt it. Just because it is wished for and can be imagined does not mean it is physically possible in any real sense.

To The Idiots at the WSJ:

[RickHunter]

You want to know why we don't have a space program like the one you're imagining? Because you and the idiot businessmen you write for decided it was too expensive, and pushed your pet politicians to cut funding for it and dump productive space programs in exchange for pork, business pay-offs, tax cuts, and other corrupt practices. Now you've realized that to expand, your economy needs to go into orbit, and that you needed to fund these things 20 years ago for them to be ready now, and are trying to find someone else to blame for the predicament your greed caused, so as not to risk your grossly overinflated salary.

Of course, I doubt you'll learn anything from this, as you and said businessmen have, as a collective, the recall and adaptation ability of the average peanut. But on the off-chance that you do, in fact, remember something, I'd like it to include the phrase:

"Payback's a bitch, ain't it?"

I'll take the asteroid

[Tackhead]

> Sadly the "kick in the pants" has always been things like a world war or having a well funded arch enemy, like the old US vs. USSR enimity. Adversity breeds inovation. Prosperity breeds complacency. So, be careful what you wish for.

Which is why, for what little it's worth, I was disappointed to find that 2004 MN4 was going to miss the Earth in 2038.

Because 35 years is just about the right length of time, not just to develop the technology to deflect the thing, but also to generate a new generation of kids - who won't merely value science and engineering as career paths, but who will see them as essential survival tools for the species.

Instead, we've got a dumbed-down educational system that would make Harrison Bergeron cringe, and the mentality that the only careers worth having are those of criminal/thug, celebrity/whore, or lawyer/lobbyist/politician.

Fuck it. We deserve to have that rock hit us.

Re:I'll take the asteroid

[Pfhorrest]

...the mentality that the only careers worth having are those of criminal/thug, celebrity/whore, or lawyer/lobbyist/politician.

So you're saying there's basically just one commonly desirable job in today's market? ;-)

Before the 70s no one saw cheap computer resources

[jdb8167]

Something that any one who is concerned that we didn't meet the goals of "golden era" science fiction should consider. Not a single one of those authors envisioned cheap, ubiquitous, and unspecialized computer hardware and software. Not one. The closest was Heinlein and he didn't get very close. See Heinlein's The Rolling Stones or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

I grew up on science fiction in the 70s and recognized around 1977 that things were not going to be like in the books. Just because we didn't meet one goal doesn't mean that we should be pessimistic about the future. What the future holds is unpredictable.

Emotional words...check

[Eunuch]

Repugnant. Emotional knee-jerk reaction. I suppose it's a sin too.

As for repugnant, I happen to think that staying as human is severly repugnant.

Highlights? Highlights?!!

[Gruneun]

From the WSJ columnist:

we get a mission whose highlights were 'a) it came back; and b) an astronaut pulled bits of cloth out from between tiles.'

From NASA:

Several elements will be carried in Discovery's payload bay for delivery to the Station. These include the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module Raffaello, containing racks of supplies, food and water, and the Human Research Facility-2 rack. Also, the External Stowage Platform and a replacement Control Moment Gyroscope will be carried in Discovery's payload bay.

Excuse me for doubting the infinite wisdom of a whiny journalist, but I think I just saw a spaceship take food, water, supplies, and new equipment to a fucking space station. I apologize for not taking that accomplishment for granted. I don't know if I will ever get used to that being a simple, common occurence.

As for the astronaut who made repairs to the spaceship in fucking space, one has to wonder if the same whiny journalist changes the oil in his own car... on Earth.

Re:As Gregory Benford's Corollary Says:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."