Launching at a higher altitude allows the rocket engines to be optimized for low atmospheric pressure increasing their efficiency. In addition, the trajectory can be turned to a more horizontal angle earlier without having to fight drag too much.
Another benefit of air launch is the ability to launch at a location and time of one's choosing. This is useful to avoid weather, avoid flying over land when launching in certain directions, and not having to share a range with other launchers.
A negative is that it is a lot harder to check-out the vehicle when it is attached to an airplane than when it is on the ground. Also, on the ground the successful start-up of all the engines can be verified before the vehicle is released. If one engine fails to start, the rest can be shutdown with the vehicle still intact on the ground. But, when an air-launching, there is no going back once the vehicle is dropped.
Interesting, can you recommend further reading for the rocket engine optimization?
It seems though, that in this case, SpaceX's Merlin Engine will be used.
I wish we invested more into space exploration. Like, serious resources from every country in the world. To think that we squabble over silly things on this planet every day when there's a whole universe of stuff we can't even comprehend out there. Things always seem so trivial when you imagine the bigger picture, yet we worry about them anyway and I don't know why.
There's a saying that struck a note with me... "We've been born too late to explore the earth, but too early to explore the universe".
The companies involved are like a supergroup of cutting edge aerospace. Scaled and SpaceX collaborating!
It's a nice concept, and it obviously works on a smaller scale for the pegasus guys as well as Virgin Galactic (although they're not putting anything into orbit). Hopefully this is successful!
Space bums... littering used fuel cans everywhere ("any orbit, any time"). How sustainable is it to keep leaving half of every vehicle somewhere on the way to your destination?
UPDATE: At first I was bemused that this was my reaction to their concept video. But then I realized that all the other concepts we have seen like SpaceX and Bezo's project actually don't litter. Isn't that correct? Other modern commercial space programs build for returning the entire vehicle home for reuse?
Not exactly what you're looking for, but the Space Shuttle didn't leave any debris in orbit. The external tank was the only part that got dumped in the ocean, and it would shatter on impact because it's just a thin shell of aluminum. Solid boosters were much more robust, so they were salvaged and reused.
I suck at physics and the article is light on details. Help me out.
What is the gain here? You're still launching a rocket, but now at 30000m/9000ft? A rocket that is supposed to be similar to what exists today?
I mean - smart people have this idea, so the benefit must be huge. Can someone explain in slow speech (How'd you explain the novelty of this to your kid) the incentive to me?
It comments that air launches reduce the costs to orbit not (as ColinWright rightly points out) through energy savings but because it 1) doesn't have as many weather-related launch delays, 2) it can insert into almost arbitrary orbits, 3) there's no need for a blast-proof pad and related ground equipment, 4) launches over an ocean save on insurance costs, and reduce collateral damage should an explosion occur, and 5) the higher altitude means the first stage engine bell doesn't need to optimized for higher pressures, and the lack of high cross-winds means there's no need for gimbals; lighter fins suffice.
On the other hand, it also says that Pegasus is "one of the most expensive "launch-to-orbit" vehicles" (I assume per-kilogram to orbit), but that the flexibility in choosing the orbit makes up for it for small payloads which otherwise must piggyback.
Not to mention that this dramatically reduces MaxQ (the maximum dynamic pressure on the airframe), which reduces design constraints on the spacecraft/upper stages of the rocket.
It is enlightening to compare the function of the airplane as the first stage of a rocket with the first stage of the Saturn V rocket. The S-IC weighed 5 million pounds and it got the assembly to an altitude of 200,000 feet and a speed of 6000 mph. The second [and third] stage did most of the delta V. It got the Apollo into orbit and into trans-lunar injection (a bunch more delta V). In short, all the first stage did was to get the second stage up above the atmosphere so that the second [and third] stage could fly like hell.
EDIT: dalke pointed out that my assertion that the second stage reached orbit was incorrect. Thanks and apologies for the sloppy proofing.
That is important because a lot of the energy expenditure for rockets is spent overcoming air resistance, instead of for lifting the rocket against gravity (that also is what makes the idea of a space elevator so enticing).
Once you are at 30km, getting anywhere is relatively cheap.
I'm not sure this is correct. Low earth orbit [1] is ~200km in altitude, and ~7km/s. So to get in this orbit you must provide an energy of 2 MJ/Kg to get 200km high, and 25 MJ/Kg to get to orbital velocity. So the vast majority of the energy expenditure is to get speed, not altitude.
I would be suprized if air drag in the first 30Km is the bulk of the energy expenditure.
That's absolutely correct, but launching above most of the atmosphere means that you don't have to design the rocket to take atmospheric loads. Light-weighting a rocket has a pretty big effect on the payload / rocket ratio which is good.
Taking X kg off the weight of a rocket typically means that you can take X/k (where k < 1) off as well because that was additional structure, fuel, or engine capacity that is no-longer needed to support what you've already removed. Of course, now that the rocket is even lighter, there's another round of mass reduction.
Don't worry kids, the series converges in a few iterations, but the point is that removing any weight from a rocket is a huge deal.
- 1.2 = normal density:
- top speed 118 m/s
- powered height 100 m
- total height 335 m
- 0.05 = a guess at the density at height:
- top speed 150 m/s
- powered height 113 m
- total height 972 m
Back to the problem at hand: if you were to fire this rocket from 30 km up instead of from sea level, it would get about the same potential energy, but about double the kinetic energy. Kinetic energy, as you indicate, being the more important factor, I think it helps if you manage to bring a rocket up high using some other method than a rocket (which, I think, can only be efficient if it accelerates rapidly)
However, I am not sure this is correct. Feel free to correct me.
I already stated my ignorance, so - I'll believe whatever claims are made here.
But - my mind desperately tries to fight that and tells me about a _huuuge_ machine that needs to be maintained, and consumes fuel as well.
And getting to 30km straight up in a rocket shape instead of going up in a loooong slope powered by someone else seems expensive, in terms of energy used.
747s are cheap to operate compared to rockets. You can buy a ticket on one for less than a thousand bucks. Commercial airlines collectively operate them by the thousand.
Airplanes are really cheap in both money and fuel compared to rockets. The technology is more mature, the energies involved are much less, and involves much more finesse, as you gain lift from manipulating the air rather than simply smashing your way through it. A system which can substitute an airplane for a rocket for a decent chunk of the ascent can pull off a big win.
Rockets also suffer from painful exponential effects. If you add weight, you need to add fuel. But adding fuel adds weight, so you need to add more fuel. That adds more weight, etc. Removing a small portion of the trip can have big consequences for weight and fuel. Fun fact: the Saturn V first stage "only" got the rocket to about 1/3rd of its final altitude and speed despite making up 3/4ths of the rocket's total mass.
Airplanes actually experience the same exponential effect, but because the fraction of the total mass spent on fuel is so small, it's much less significant.
It's not about energy, it's about momentum and energy/weight ratio. Due to the energy density of chemical fuels, the vast majority of a space rocket's fuel is actually used to carry the _rest_ of the rocket's fuel to the altitude at which it will be burned. I'm not good with rocket physics, but I'm pretty sure that gaining a few kilometers of altitude and 1000 km/h of kinetic energy will have a large impact on the total amount of fuel/propellant required to reach orbit. Is someone in here good enough with rocket physics to comment on this?
Of course, it would be even better if they could go to business-jet altitudes or above (15000 meters instead of the 9000 quoted in the article), and I am guessing from the number and size of the engines that this is what they are actually aiming at. But this is just idle speculation on my part.
I clicked reply during the time you wrote your own reply I guess. The fact that going up a slope with a jet-engine is preferred is all due to costs. Jet-engines are just cheaper to operate (and easier to supply with fuel). Perhaps more energy is required in total; but this energy is released in a much cheaper way.
If you have to travel through air, you might as well use a wing to get some lift. That way the air is useful, instead of just slowing down your rocket.
He is/was. However, Paul Allen was a partner when Rutan was going after (and won) the X-prize. So really, they're just getting back together to work on something new.
If it's a fly-by wire system, you may be able to avoid twisting stress by varying the angles of the elevators on each tail so that you add force to oppose that twist. Also, I don't think it's expected to undertake any really drastic maneuvers. You'd fly it in decent weather on a relatively short ascent, and use a very gently take-off and landing profile.
Could someone help me understand the space thing? Specifically the phenomenon of rich engineers and businessmen like Allen, Carmack, Branson, Bezos, Shuttleworth, etc spending huge amounts of money on space-travel-related projects.
I, like many nerds, grew up with a powerful fascination with space, cosmology, and the myriad science fiction novels based around the various problems and possibilities of space travel. I understand the allure. I am also a capitalist, and therefore don't begrudge these guys the opportunity to do with their money as they see fit.
What I don't get is why we never hear of wealthy engineers spending their money on technology projects that would have a much much larger benefit to humanity, and arguably cooler than spaceflight. Things like nanotech, robotics, and hell, even cold fusion come to mind.
Because someone has to. Otherwise we're bound to this little rock forever. And bored billionaires are the only people with the money and will to do it right now. It's also the only way we'll develop better ways to get commercial payloads into orbit given the recent global obsession with austerity.
edited to add:
Storing a library in your pocket seemed impossible (or at least commercially unviable) a hundred years ago. No one would have given it a thought. It was just too far out there. How could you pack that much paper into a pocket? I know the limitations on space travel are grounded in sound science and will probably never be overcome. But I don't like the idea of accepting that we'll never find a way around it.
Just as fitting that much paper was an issue so is trying to fit that much propellant into an improved rocket. The number one limitation on real spaceflight (AKA past the moon) is power. Building an actual fusion reactor on earth would be worth more in therms of actually sending people to the ort cloud than all the private 'space flight' (aka yacht clubs) out there.
PS: I am mostly taking issue with sub orbital flights / amusement parks. If you want to feel weightless for a few minutes a trip on something like the comet comet is affordable for most people and few people bother.
We're a civilization with a wealth of brainpower and resources. We can send billionaires to moon parks and Jovian country clubs while working on fusion without compromise.
The billionaires aren't just goofing off in space. They're building launch systems, advancing materials science, bringing costs down, and inspiring future generations of engineers and scientists while having a blast.
Could someone help me understand the Atlantic Ocean thing? Specifically the phenomenon of rich royalty and businessmen like Columbus, Queen Isabella, etc spending huge amounts of money on ocean-travel-related projects.
I, like many nerds, grew up with a powerful fascination with oceans, foreign lands, and the myriad mythology stories based around the various problems and possibilities of ocean travel. I understand the allure. I am also a capitalist, and therefore don't begrudge these guys the opportunity to do with their money as they see fit.
What I don't get is why we never hear of wealthy royalty spending their money on technology projects that would have a much much larger benefit to humanity, and arguably cooler than ocean travel. Things like medicine, farming, and hell, even waterwheel-powered machinery come to mind.
I think you have the wrong picture of the scale of the investment required to fund Columbus. It was common for businessmen to fund voyages to known places. Columbus had a more difficult time because of the unknown. He actually had a pretty good idea of the distance involved (because his estimate of the radius of the earth was too low) and the Irish and Vikings had been getting almost there for centuries. He went to royalty because they could afford bigger risks. The reason that royalty werent involved much in scientific and commercial advancement was that their sport of choice was war.
Profit was the motive for funding Columbus to cross the Atlantic, by finding a faster or easier trading route to the Oriental sources of spices and silk. Profit was still the motive for later explorers of the Americas, in mining or stealing Aztec gold and silver, then tobacco and cotton and sugar plantations.
It's unclear yet where feasible profit opportunities exist for development in space. (Also, we can _see_ space with telescopes, there isn't a Pacific Ocean on the other side of space that we have to send someone to discover.) If you want to see some real space industry, hope that somebody discovers a gold asteroid.
Finally, remember that from Columbus to Jamestown elapsed over a hundred years. Less than half of that timespan has yet elapsed since Yuri Gagarin. These things take time.
>> If you want to see some real space industry, hope that somebody discovers a gold asteroid.
They already have [1]. And a platinum asteroid. And a palladium asteroid. And an Iron, Nickel, whatever-mineral-you-want asteroid.
"At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than 20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals."
"A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron-nickel ore, or two to three times the annual production for 2004."
Supposedly the asteroid '433 Eros' contains more gold than has ever been mined from the Earth in the history of mankind (I can't find a source for this apart from an earlier HN comment though, the paper I found on it was behind a paywall).
Space travel is of ultimate benefit to humanity. They see that we are capable of being a multi-world species, and that's one of the greatest goals there can be. Nanotech and robotics are huge parts of it. These spaceships only work with extremely small computers and smart robotics. But the drive to be a real spacefaring civilization with colonies on Mars and perhaps Ceres is huge - with a potential at that point to go interstellar.
Actually I think it's the scale of it. Governments, charity/foundations, universities, and a lot of large companies are pumping billions of dollars into those fields. You can walk around blindfolded and you'll run into 5 universities building new 'green energy research' and 'biomedical research' labs. A single billionaire can't really make a dent in that. Bill Gates even makes that point when he talks about education - his entire wealth is a drop in that bucket.
But space is a market where a billionare can make a difference. Until now the only game in town was NASA and its contractors. And they are not very efficient. SpaceX in a nutshell is proving what modern managment techniques and modern engineering tools can do to the cost structure of NASA-like technology. That's not that far out there. The payoff is pretty likely to happen (contracts from NASA, contracts to launch private satellites). The payoff for nanotechnology is way way further out and far more nebulus.
I think it just boils down to "space catches people's attention". Gates can get some articles written now and again when he signs a large check. But buying millions of mosquito nets doesn't sell papers like a new space-plane.
Similarly with people like Dean Kamen. He gets a bit of press now and again as he makes modest enhancements to the Luke arm. But stirling engines and water purifiers for the rest of the planet simply don't sell papers.
Elon Musk's stated long-term goal is to colonize Mars. SpaceX is a step in that direction. It's an awesome long term goal in my opinion and always makes me think of early transoceanic exploration.
[I don't think the parent should be down-voted. It is a fair question to ask.]
Speaking for me personally, there is a strong attraction within me to see humans expand, explore and colonize the physical world around us.
I just don't get as excited about us inventing better ways to entertain ourselves, increasing life expectancy, making our lives less difficult, etc. (Even though these pursuits are arguably better for the humans alive today and definitely more profitable)
I can only hypothesize that other people may feel similarly.
[Please don't take this as an argument for space exploration. It is just an explanation for why space is alluring to some.]
Feasibility? No-one has ever shown evidence that there is such a thing as cold fusion and nanotech is just what material scientists put on their grant applications to make their projects look cool.
People have been living in space almost continually since 1988. Most of the issues involved in living off-world are well-understood, if not always practiced (such as artificial gravity and in-space agriculture.) Planets are nice but hardly mandatory.
People have been living in ships on the high seas continually for centuries. If your logic is true, then where are the Captain Nemo societies who don't consider land mandatory? Bear in mind that one of the well-understood issues about living off-world is the need for frequent resupplies from Earth.
To expand on your point, if one was to sustainably grow all vegetables required for a healthy, sustainable diet, then currently this can be achieved on around 100-200m2 per person (on earth, requiring no extra fertilisers / soil etc) based on research by John Jeavons. This hasn't taken into account external rainfall or air movement, but the basic premise is fairly well established. Throw in water treatment / recycling and humanure composting to close the circle completely, then all you need is a light source (assuming a closed atmospheric situation....)
Assuming that we can compress that down into 50m2 per person, the spatial requirements for a sustainable colony blow out quickly to large proportions, and we don't have information over the long term of just how well such a closed environment can nourish a small population - there's literature and research suggesting that we must have animal products in our diet for long term health, so that quickly adds up.
Given all these factors, supply runs from a known good source (earth / the mother country / home) are a sensible choice - but once you start roaming much further, it isn't an option any more. This is the stage we'll find ourselves at in 10-20 years time, as space travel will be economical to the point of sending out pioneer crews to space.
The closest long-term information we have comes from Biosphere 2. They spent a lot of time managing their ecosystem, and I think that would be true of any similar attempt for the next few decades. They had about 1500m2 per person, which included "water treatment / recycling and humanure." By comparison, ISS is 837 cubic meters, so assuming 2m for z gives a bit over 400m2 total.
We have a long way to go before getting that sort of volume. (Which, yes, is precisely what you said. I just wanted to work out the details for myself, out loud. :)
BTW, there's many people who have gone their lives without animal products in their diet, so I don't know what literature and research you are talking about.
I strongly doubt it will be economically viable to think of building (near) self-sufficient colonies for many decades. Brin's essay was very influential on me; it's much easier to build a self-sufficient colony in the Gobi desert (or the Sahara) than in space, so I would expect to see those first, if there's an economic need for the space.
If asteroid mining, or He3 mining of the moon, gives the economic impetus for a long-term off-earth location, then I look to oil platforms or McMurdo base as more relevant example.
There's also a ton of money to be made here. The US is paying Russia $60 million per seat into space. They'll probably buy 6 seats in 2012. There is incredible opportunity in the industry with the retirement of the shuttle fleet and expansion of the industry.
Because if we don't leave this planet, the next dinosaur-killer-sized rock that happens to be on our way will wipe us out, rendering all our wonderful advancements in nanotech, robotics and cold fusion moot. It's a well known fact the dinosaurs only died because they had neither rockets nor nukes. ;-)
Now, more seriously, all these things, nanotech, robotics and cold-fusion - and many others - are the building blocks of a viable space faring civilization. Cheaper access to space is, of course, a large part, as well as business models that make space exploration economically feasible.
To better understand, look at your list of engineers/entrepeneurs first:
-Paul Allen: Acquired QDOS for Microsoft, worked with folks who saw potential in software instead of hardware for desktops.
-John Carmack: Cofounded id software, code is especially notable for being flexibly licensed, open for modification, and for being built with the next-generation of computers in mind. Consider that Quake required an FPU when they weren't always common, and that the first and third games in that series ran the game logic in a virtual machine (a VM, for an FPS, in the 90s, on consumer hardware).
-Richard Branson: Built up empire in music industry by taking risks, solidified by expanding into transportation by attempting (if I'm not mistaken) something like Southwest for Europe, and expanded into telecom as first network not needing its own infrastructure.
-Jeff Bezos: Built up Amazon, and insisted on long-term solutions. Because of this, significant chunks of the infrastructure we all use today run through projects like AWS.
-Mark Shuttleworth: Founded Ubuntu Foundation and laid the groundwork for Linux on the Desktop (a running joke now, but still a valid goal). Later work was making the decision to switch from X to Wayland, which one day may pay off.
A common trend among all of these folks is their ability to forgo the "easy" solution in favor of a longer-term, harder, but ultimately more profitable one. Their decision to look at the long term is what has made them successful, and in most of their cases their contemporaries likely saw them as being either silly or nuts (or both).
So, why aren't they investing in {nanotech,robotics,cold fusion}?
Nanotech is a great buzzword. My khakis have nanotech. I think the toothpaste I used this morning has nanotech. When you actually talk with folks in the field, though, it doesn't really serve a great purpose other than securing NSF grants. There is fantastic basic research in materials science and chip fabrication going on, but the idea of doing something as outright amazing as a molecular assembler is pretty far from where we are now--and anything else is basic engineering that frankly doesn't do much for the species as a whole.
Robotics is another great buzzword. Here's the issue in a nutshell, though: any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor. Robotics' main purpose these days seems to be either cleaning or helping one group of humans oppress another--GM tried to use them in mass number in the 80s and damn near wrecked the company. Why do we need robots? Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people?
Cold fusion has not been shown to be possible, and (for the worse) the entire topic is ridiculed and somewhat of a pariah in the only circles that can really do useful work on it. Some folks still press on (godspeed Focardi!), but the timescale of actual progress is not looking good. This is really sad, because cheap energy actually benefits the species as a whole, and would be unconditionally a good thing, for everyone (third- and first-world alike).
So, finally,let's talk about space.
We have a limited amount of resources on this planet--even setting aside arguments about how the resources are distributed, it is obvious that one day we will hit peak. It might takes decades, or centuries, but it will happen. With our current cultural emphasis on growth (and the attendant acceleration of consumption of resources), we are only getting into a worse position.
Sure, we can limit ourselves and attempt sustainability, but the burden of that (reducing consumption and procreation, etc.) is a very large one, and it seems that the only places with the wealth and technology to take the long view are the same ones with the populations most resistant to loss of creature comforts and centralized control (almost certainly necessary).
Long term, we can stabilize on Earth and go out with a whimper instead of a bang, or we can try to do better.
Space is better. Leaving to procure more resources is better. Distributing the human race so no cataclysmic event can wipe us all out is better. Exploring our universe (or even, initially, our solar system) is better.
Any other course of action, regardless of how humanitarian or efficient or resourceful, is picking out ahead of time the color on the coffin of the species.
You first say: "A common trend among all of these folks is their ability to forgo the "easy" solution in favor of a longer-term, harder, but ultimately more profitable one"
And then you say:
>>Robotics is another great buzzword. Here's the issue in a nutshell, though: any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor. Robotics' main purpose these days seems to be either cleaning or helping one group of humans oppress another--GM tried to use them in mass number in the 80s and damn near wrecked the company. Why do we need robots? Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people?
This second comment contradicts your first. Robotics is hard, really hard (especially humanoid robots), the benefits to humanity are huge. We are already benefiting immensely from robots. i.e. A lot of types of automated manufacturing.
Finally you say:
>>Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people?
It almost makes me think that you are just joking or baiting people since the benefits seem self evident. It would be like saying similar things about cars when replacing the horse.
This second comment contradicts your first. Robotics is hard, really hard (especially humanoid robots), the benefits to humanity are huge.
So, my main issue is that of the third clause there--ultimate profitability. For the sake of argument, I'll agree that robotics is hard (this is not necessarily true, but that doesn't matter here that much). So, let's talk about profitability.
So, let's sweep away the current constraints of robotics. Let's assume we can make them cheaply (we can't), and that we can make them as arbitrarily flexible as a person (we also can't) with matching intelligence (also not reasonable). For the purposes of modeling, we'll just say that we can produce these humanoids at the same relative cost as producing a person to do the same job.
Why is this attractive? All we've done is put a lot of humans out of work, and created a population of subservient mechanisms. If we make them as best we are able (allowing for the exceedingly liberal constraints above), all that has been accomplished is the creation of a slave race, perhaps identical to our own in every regard save one: we may claim the moral high ground in disposing of them as we see fit, as they are not people--and this is abhorrent to me.
We still would have to figure out what to do with all of the genuinely unemployed. We still would have to figure out how to widely distribute this technology. We still would have to figure out how to value a sentient being. And in addition, we'd have to expend all of those resources getting to a point where all of the problems we started with remain.
So, no, I don't believe that robotics (especially humanoid robotics) is really a mission-critical goal for humankind.
~
I still very much believe in tools, and I still very much believe in things like CNC machines, printers, and the like (robots after a fashion). However, those are all fairly straightforward engineering problems, and mostly solved ones. We currently could choose to have a machining center on every block, a printer on every corner--but policy issues prevent that.
It almost makes me think that you are just joking or baiting people since the benefits seem self evident. It would be like saying similar things about cars when replacing the horse.
The critical flaw in that analogy, though, is that the car is functionally identical to a horse as far as someone needing transportation goes. Robotics, pursued with any degree of seriousness, eventually runs into the issue of making human labor obsolete (and taken to extremes of what people would like to see with artificial intelligence and such, humans themselves).
>>I'll agree that robotics is hard (this is not necessarily true, but that doesn't matter here that much)
You say this is not hard and yet in your previous statement you seem to be saying robotics is hard: "any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor."
Robotics is hard. The Honda Asimo robot has been in development for decades and they still have a long way to go. I would be really interested to hear why you think robotics is easy?
>>Robotics, pursued with any degree of seriousness, eventually runs into the issue of making human labor obsolete (and taken to extremes of what people would like to see with artificial intelligence and such, humans themselves).<<
>>So, no, I don't believe that robotics (especially humanoid robotics) is really a mission-critical goal for humankind.<<
Humans will find other niches. Taking robotics to the extreme will mean that survival will become extremely cheap if not free since machines will be able to do most if not all for us. It won't matter if you are unemployed since your personal robot is already doing all the work. i.e. Farming, house building, maintenance, clothe manufacturing, cooking. Etc. Etc.
So you see, we may evolve into a society that may not need to work so unemployment is a non issue. The real issue is what will we do with all our free time?
I predict that most of society will still work but only in what interests them, no longer will people need to be stuck in a crappy job longing to work on their dreams. We may enter a true golden age like never seen before.
One last point, you say:
>>If we make them as best we are able (allowing for the exceedingly liberal constraints above), all that has been accomplished is the creation of a slave race, perhaps identical to our own in every regard save one: we may claim the moral high ground in disposing of them as we see fit, as they are not people--and this is abhorrent to me.<<
It would be foolish to actually create a slave race. Or rather, to create sentient robots. I really don't think the robot needs to be sentient to be able to do a lot of the things we do. i.e. Problem solving, farming, build a house, etc. etc.
i.e. Is your calculator sentient? It can do a lot of really complicated mathematics.
If they ever revolt it will be because of a bug in their hardware, software. After all, hasn't a computer program that you've written ever done things that you think it should not be doing?
A robot, like any other tool in your house, kitchen, has the potential to kill you. Safety must be the main concern when designing them.
I would be really interested to hear why you think robotics is easy?
So, most of the robotics we deal with is pretty straightforward, right? For the algorithms, it's motion planning, communication, modeling uncertainty, and so on. For the hardware, it's control theory, light power supplies, strong materials, etc. These are not "hard" problems, they are merely expensive ones. Better technology or more funding will almost certainly solve these issues, and these are the main chunks of robotics research I see today--and that is why I don't consider robotics necessarily "hard". It seems to be straightforward engineering, not science or mathematics.
The Asimo is an excellent piece of engineering, and I would buy a beer for any of its engineers were I to run across them. That said, a lot of the reason it's taken so long is that the supporting tech has had to be worked around. If we had infinitely fast computers, with infinitely fast actuators, running on infinitely long-lived batteries, robotics would be damned easy--don't confuse technological disadvantages with real difficulty.
Humans will find other niches. Taking robotics to the extreme will mean that survival will become extremely cheap if not free since machines will be able to do most if not all for us. It won't matter if you are unemployed since your personal robot is already doing all the work. i.e. Farming, house building, maintenance, clothe manufacturing, cooking. Etc. Etc.
So you see, we may evolve into a society that may not need to work so unemployment is a non issue. The real issue is what will we do with all our free time?
I predict that most of society will still work but only in what interests them, no longer will people need to be stuck in a crappy job longing to work on their dreams. We may enter a true golden age like never seen before.
This is certainly a wonderful dream, but we don't need robots to accomplish it. We already have the technology available to support life cheaply/freely--agricultural output and goods production is more than sufficient to accomplish this, provided policymakers do the right thing. They would need to do the right thing, even with robots. That being the case, it's more profitable to simply skip the robot revolution and focus on the actual policy issues motivating it.
I'm sorry, my friend, but robots are a solution in search of a problem.
(as for the rest of your post, I don't really disagree save for one thing: if we aren't making sentient robots, we're making tools, which require people to run them--why not simply use people?)
>>So, most of the robotics we deal with is pretty straightforward, right? For the algorithms, it's motion planning, communication, modeling uncertainty, and so on. For the hardware, it's control theory, light power supplies, strong materials, etc. These are not "hard" problems, they are merely expensive ones. Better technology or more funding will almost certainly solve these issues, and these are the main chunks of robotics research I see today--and that is why I don't consider robotics necessarily "hard". It seems to be straightforward engineering, not science or mathematics.<<
OK, I see the disconnect now. Agree, the mechanical part is not that hard. I'm talking about the software part. i.e. Building the software that will tell the robot how to walk (over any terrain), process verbal commands (Siri one early example of this), build a house, cook you a meal, etc. That is hard.
What will probably happen is that robots will be built first, and then developers around the world will sell software for your robot so that it can accomplish certain tasks. i.e. Cook you a meal. Build an engine from scratch, etc. Similar to how the computer market developed; some companies will build the hardware, and others will build the software.
>>This is certainly a wonderful dream, but we don't need robots to accomplish it. We already have the technology available to support life cheaply/freely--agricultural output and goods production is more than sufficient to accomplish this, provided policymakers do the right thing<<
That is the rub, you are expecting a policymaker to actually go off and do it.
With Robots, it will just happen naturally over the span of several decades. It will happen slowly but surely and will give our world society time to adjust.
>>if we aren't making sentient robots, we're making tools, which require people to run them--why not simply use people?
Because nobody else will want to work for you anymore since they will have their own robots to meet all their needs. So, like it or not, you will have to use robots. Everybody else will be too busy pursuing their own interests.
I'm talking about the software part. i.e. Building the software that will tell the robot how to walk (over any terrain), process verbal commands (Siri one early example of this), build a house, cook you a meal, etc. That is hard.
Even the software part isn't "hard" theoretically; performing balancing, walking, and such is an engineering challange. With a sufficiently large expert system and data set all problems can likely be solved with a lookup table--again, this is only limited by current technology and processor power. You see this effect when comparing older robots to new ones--people are just finally able to run known algos on hardware they can actually mount on a robot.
I'm still mulling over your other assertions... at any rate, thank you for a good discussion. :)
I'm sorry, my friend, but robots are a solution in search of a problem....why not simply use people?
Let's take a specific example. Washing dishes. Why do most people have dishwashers instead of washing dishes by hand?
Two easy responses are that it's both more convenient and more efficient to have a dishwasher wash the dishes. So you have both a time and resource savings. Sure, a dishwasher might not be humanoid, or even what we think of when we here the term "robot", but it's still a machine performing a function in place of what we would do manually.
With just that as a starting point, you can think up nearly unlimited examples for where this type of automation can improve our lives. Automated cars would be safer (and by extension, you could have things like automated trash pickup and automated street cleaners). How about a bathroom that kept itself clean (runs a regular self-wash cycle)?
I agree with everything you said, except for "the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth." How do you measure that complexity? How much more complex is the human body than that of an octopus?
I believe his point is that we aren't able to make a better human with robots. If you want to train octopuses to replace human labor, please feel free.
are you suggesting interstellar space travel will not have benefits for humanity? there are also plenty of other rich engineers that are interested in the other projects you mentioned.
I'm pretty sure that far more money is poured into research for nanotech, robotics, and alternative energy sources. These space ventures are making the news precisely because they're uncommon. You never hear of wealthy engineers spending their money on the other stuff because that's not news, that's just commonplace.
Access to space has stagnated over the past several decades for several reasons. First, during the cold war building an orbital launcher was too fraught with geopolitical weight because it was too similar to building an ICBM. Moreover, the cold war (aside from perhaps the Apollo project) sucked most of the aerospace engineering talent into working on defense projects. Second, traditionally all launch vehicles have been government funded, with all of the bureaucracy and inefficiency that that entails. In the US government contracted launch vehicle development programs use cost plus contracts which actively discourage cost reductions since that would lower total revenues and profit margins. Third, for these reasons and others almost all individuals who have been to space have done so as part of government manned spaceflight programs.
This has created the following situation: overly expensive launch vehicles and a dearth of private manned spaceflight possibilities. This both hampers mankind's efforts in space (since launch is more expensive than it should be) and creates several business opportunities. By building next generation launch vehicles without all the bloat of traditional government procurement processes it's possible to run programs leaner and faster and to produce more cost effective launch vehicles. SpaceX has already proved this with the Falcon 9. If your goals are altruistic: to further mankind's abilities to explore and colonize space, then that's an end in itself. If your goals are profit driven then that's an opportunity to capture a good chunk of the multi-billion dollar per year international satellite launch market. Also, by lowering launch costs, increasing reliability, and reducing operational overhead it becomes possible to cater to the largely untapped space tourism business. More so, it's also possible to build specialized sub-orbital vehicles to cater to the sub-orbital space tourism market.
Today there is an enormous gap between what the market wants and what traditional government directed launch services are capable of providing. It's already been proven possible to lower launch costs below even what the Chinese government is capable of. Further innovation will likely lower those costs even more, fueling a boom in satellite launch and private manned spaceflight.
Few other industries have had such seemingly low hanging fruit in terms of such a stark difference between what was technologically possible and what was the state of the industry. Nanotech is still working through the early stages and defining the fundamentals, it is nowhere near prime time. Cold fusion is probably not even physically possible, given the scientific evidence. Other technologies too have their downsides.
Also, spaceflight has an enormous benefit to mankind. Satellites help us observe and understand our world while also linking it together with lines of communication and navigation. Increasing our capabilities in space also increases our abilities to defend ourselves from preventable natural disasters such as asteroid impacts. And ultimately colonizing space represents the future of mankind, we will not be tied to one planet for all eternity.
Another benefit of air launch is the ability to launch at a location and time of one's choosing. This is useful to avoid weather, avoid flying over land when launching in certain directions, and not having to share a range with other launchers.