Several years ago (more than I care to think about) we put up a new trellis, and planted a bougainvillea at the entrance to our back yard in southern California. The hope was that the plant would grow to fill in the trellis, providing a beautiful hedge for privacy. Though one of the features of an established bougainvillea is low watering needs, we at first watered it diligently to establish the roots and spur its growth. But it grew slowly, sending out a few tendrils that I attached strategically around the trellis in the hope that it would fill in smoothly and quickly. It took two or three years before it finally blocked the view through the fencing. Now, over a decade later, it grows so vigorously that it has to be trimmed regularly, lest it project thorny branches out into the path where people walk. Despite its slow start, it has a thick trunk, and massive root system, that provides structure and nourishment for now-rapid and unstoppable growth.
It's a truism in technological progress that we are always overoptimistic in the short term. The corollary is that we tend to be pessimistic in the longer term. Both of these effects are a result of the fact that we tend to think linearly, while life, and growth happen more exponentially--very slow at first, and then growing explosively as they climb the curve.
So Jon and Clark shouldn't be discouraged at the frustratingly slow progress so far in suborbital activities, and Clark should and will (barring some miracle out of Armadillo or someone this summer) buy Dwayne Day his Italian dinner with cheer and good grace, and make another bet. It's tragic, of course, that some of those on Jon's list will not live to see the fruit of their labors, who might have had we been able to make better progress. But we can't let that discourage us.
We have just finally, after delays caused much more by false perceptions than technological ability, gotten the plants in the ground, and the irrigation is on them, in the form of ongoing funding. Of course, they're experimental hybrid plants, so it's hard to know their growth rate ahead of time, or which of them will survive the soil or sun of their location. But over time, some will succeed, and grow, slowly at first, but eventually faster, until they are thriving at such a rate that we will marvel at all the people who said that the soil was barren, and that they would never flower, let alone fruit. And we will marvel from far above them, from the top of our garden that reaches up into the sky, and beyond.
FWIW, my prescription is simply to take the words "Space Age" literally: it's an age, folks, not "the year of the LAN" or "that week when everyone thought Dean Kamen's 'Ginger', whatever it turned out to be, would change life as we know it." Impatience is human, but it's also kinda like someone deciding in 9000 BC, after a few bad harvests of emmer, that this whole agriculture/settlement thing was a bust.
Only in the very broadest metaphorical sense is space anything like "this new ocean," or the New World, or aviation. We're absolute beginners at something that for real, inescapable reasons -- running much deeper than "NASA screwed up" or "investors don't see the promi$e" -- has been, and will be, harder and slower and more costly than almost anyone anticipated during that heady sprint in the 1960s.
Recalibrate and live with it, or find another dream.
Impatience is human, but it's also kinda like someone deciding in 9000 BC, after a few bad harvests of emmer, that this whole agriculture/settlement thing was a bust.
Who are you and what have you done with Monte Davis? :-)
Let me get this straight:
Space Tragic (aka Kool-Aid drinker): compares space to ocean life colonizing land.
Space Cynic: compares space to dawn of agriculture.
Monte, a few years ago you were (properly) complaining about lame comparisons to Colombus.
What happened?
Perhaps we space folks are especially vulnerable to this, since our standard measure of progress is the space race of the ‘60’s? Eight years from unable to launch a grapefruit sized sat, to launching Saturn-V skyscrapers into orbit, to places a small fleet in lunar orbit. But those years, that race, had no “roots” and died without a trace as fast as they formed.
This way is much more likely to hold.
SpaceX has wound another tendril around the trellis. Falcon 9 has been successfully tested with five engines. Hope those roots are getting stronger.
Yours,
Wince
... I hope I see some flowers sprouting off planet before I die.
It's all a question of scale, brother Jim. I don't object to the "ocean life colonizing the land" simile in and of itself; I object to those who use it for its grandeur and its (retrospective) sense of inevitability -- while insisting on a timescale modeled on that of aviation, or worse yet information technology.
In fact, the sea-to-land simile may be especially apt: with Freeman Dyson and some others, I suspect that between biotech and IT and telepresence, a directed (and speedy) form of "evolution" may outstrip improvements in transport -- so that those who inherit the solar system (let alone the stars) will be very different from us. The idea of 70kg meatsacks zooming around in airtight spaceships may prove as irrelevant as the idea of fishes and cephalopods tooling around the continents in mobile aquariums.
Actually, Monte's got a really good point. What real estate is available in the solar system ranges from "mostly unsuitable" to "godawful" from a "Can this support human life?" p.o.v. Maybe humans will only make short appearances in space, always to return to Earth (sort of like flying fish) while it's our "children" that really colonize.
One of the things I remain deeply pessimistic about is gravity. Even if we take an airtight container with us that protects us sufficiently from radiation, we don't know what differences in gravity the human body can withstand in the long term. What if even Venus's 0.9 g's aren't enough for healthy reproduction? It's a a real possibiilty we will quickly diverge into different species that cannot visit each other's homes except briefly.
Great illustration Rand. It does give hope that people choose to privately invest in space. Elon doesn't say it out loud too often (and business realities may beat the idea out of him) but one of his goals seems to be colonization (at least to make it possible for some to do so.) He's not alone, but the fact that he's actually making part of the tools needed for that eventuality seems significant to me. Others may create viable SSTO which will change the rules again. It's exciting even if the pace does seem slow right now.
As for adaptability, they have a saying in North Dakota, "30 below keeps out the riff-raff." We will adapt. That's not to say that some may not suffer because they can't adapt as well as others.
That was beautifully written Rand.
As for adaptability, they have a saying in North Dakota, "30 below keeps out the riff-raff."
How many people would live in North Dakota if it was 30 below 24/7/365?
How many people would live in North Dakota if it was 30 below 24/7/365?
Fewer than now, but certainly not zero, given the huge amount of oil underneath it. They'd figure out how to do it, and pay well. Do you really think that they'd just let the oil sit there unpumped?
Space cynics don't necessarily object to the notion that there will be a movement out into space, eventually. The future is a long time, after all. What's objected to is the notion that this can or will happen soon, and that making it happen soon is a plausible or desirable goal.
IMO, the biggest benefit of today's space enterprises will be the deflation of unreasonable expectations.
Fewer than now, but certainly not zero, given the huge amount of oil underneath it. They'd figure out how to do it, and pay well. Do you really think that they'd just let the oil sit there unpumped?
They would likely have an arrangement where the oil is pumped by workers that actually live elsewhere a la off shore oil well rigs. Doesn't that seem more reasonable than permanent settlement?
Given the low transportation costs, yes. Which is why (as always) your terrestrial comparisons to space are nonsensical. And they continue to ignore the motivations of those who might want to settle off planet, which wouldn't apply to North Dakota (or the sea bottom, or Antarctica).
Given the low transportation costs, yes.
Then you're changing your mind? You agree that no one would live in North Dakota if it were 30 below 24/7/365? They would only work there?
Which is why (as always) your terrestrial comparisons to space are nonsensical.
I believe the comparison of space to North Dakota was Mr. Anthony's. Was his comparison nonsensical?
And they continue to ignore the motivations of those who might want to settle off planet, which wouldn't apply to North Dakota (or the sea bottom, or Antarctica).
Oh, I don't ignore them. I'm just not particularly impressed by them.
Then you're changing your mind? You agree that no one would live in North Dakota if it were 30 below 24/7/365? They would only work there?
No, not necessarily. It depends on what the other conditions are.
I'm just not particularly impressed by them.
<shrug>
Does it matter whether or not you're impressed by them? No one has ever pegged you as a potential colonist.
Does it matter whether or not you're impressed by them?
Oh, no. The only thing that matters is whether Rand Simberg is impressed by them. Everyone knows that.
No one has ever pegged you as a potential colonist.
Possibly, but I'm not sure why you think that relevant. No one has ever pegged you or me as potential presidential candidates either. Are our political opinions therefore to be dismissed out of hand?
It's relevant because, otherwise, it really doesn't matter what you think. Unlike a presidential election, you're probably not going to have an opportunity to vote on it (at least I hope not). Are you similarly unimpressed with the Mormons' motivations for emigrating to Utah? Your lack of being impressed with them would have had negligible effect on whether they did it or not.
It's relevant because, otherwise, it really doesn't matter what you think. Unlike a presidential election, you're probably not going to have an opportunity to vote on it (at least I hope not).
Everyone is voting on it, Rand. We're all voting with our feet.
Are you similarly unimpressed with the Mormons' motivations for emigrating to Utah?
My estimation of the Mormons' motivations compared to the motivations of space colonists is in similar proportions as the population of Utah compared to the population of space.
My estimation of the Mormons' motivations compared to the motivations of space colonists is in similar proportions as the population of Utah compared to the population of space.
You're joking, right?
Are you really setting up the straw man that I am (or anyone is) claiming that people are able to settle space today?
The point is that when the technology evolves to the point at which it becomes feasible to settle space, people will do so (just as they did in Utah), regardless of how unimpressed Jim Davis is with their motivation.
Are you really setting up the straw man that I am (or anyone is) claiming that people are able to settle space today?
Rand, please don't put words in my mouth. I am not saying that anyone claims that space can be settled today anymore than I am saying that anyone claims that a man can be sent to the moon today.
I am saying that many people, from O'Neill to Zubrin to you, over the last few decades have claimed that there are no technological barriers to space colonization and that many organizations (L5, SSI, Mars Society, etc) have been set up to advocate same. It is fair to use the number of space settlers as a measure of their success or of the soundness of their claims. Take your pick.
The point is that when the technology evolves to the point at which it becomes feasible to settle space
The proper conditional is "if".
, people will do so
You seem to be claiming that lack of settlers in space is purely a matter of lack of technology. Does the same apply to terrestrial locations with no settlers? And if it is merely a matter of technology why are you making such a huge deal about motivations?
, (just as they did in Utah)
For someone who dislikes terrestrial comparisons to space you sure come up with a lot of them.
regardless of how unimpressed Jim Davis is with their motivation.
Well, Utah was occupied by stone age settlers millenia before the Mormans arrive, at the time by the Utes (hence the name "Utah"), so your claim that some technological advances enabled the settling of Utah doesn't hold water. Or maybe I miss your point altogether?
In any event here's my point:
The point is that if technology does not evolve to the point at which it becomes feasible to settle space, people will not do so (just as they have not done so at many locations on Earth), regardless of how fervently Rand Simberg or anyone else is motivated to do so.
I am saying that many people, from O'Neill to Zubrin to you, over the last few decades have claimed that there are no technological barriers to space colonization and that many organizations (L5, SSI, Mars Society, etc) have been set up to advocate same.
Emphasis mine. This is kind of amazing, coming from someone supposedly upset about "putting words in my mouth." Pot, meet kettle. A very black one.
Well, Utah was occupied by stone age settlers millenia before the Mormans arrive, at the time by the Utes (hence the name "Utah"), so your claim that some technological advances enabled the settling of Utah doesn't hold water.
Compare the current population of Utah to the population then.
Just a guess, but I'd say that technology (not to mention culture) has something to do with it. Kind of like the momentary population on the moon in the sixties and what we might expect in the future...
The point is that if technology does not evolve to the point at which it becomes feasible to settle space, people will not do so.
Neither I, nor anyone else, as far as I know, even including Bob Zubrin, has claimed otherwise. In other words, straw man.
Compare the current population of Utah to the population then.
Just a guess, but I'd say that technology (not to mention culture) has something to do with it.
I'd say so too. Advanced technology surely allows larger populations (and vice versa).
But the question before the house is whether advanced technology allows settlement in hitherto uninhabitable locations. Possibly, but the historical support for such a proposition is, at best, scant. Which explains the rhetorical bait and switch with locations like Utah..
Wish I's seem this sooner.
But the question before the house is whether advanced technology allows settlement in hitherto uninhabitable locations. Possibly, but the historical support for such a proposition is, at best, scant.
Not scant. Voluminous. Consider the following technologies: Fire. Clothing. Tents and houses. Pottery for food storage. Ships. People had to have some pretty sophisticated technology to live in the Artic, the Himilayas and Polynesia, for example. (You could just go with outside Africa.) We just take that technology for granted now.
Yours,
Wince