Charlie Stross sees it.
What I found interesting, though, is how quickly the discussion in comments transitioned to how slow the progress has been in space access, with NASA taking a beating.
There is no question that space technology, with high-powered (megawatts/gigawatts) devices is fundamentally different than things that switch bits and electrons around, and it's not reasonable to expect it to come close to Moore's Law. But there's also no question that, given different policies for the past half century, things could be much further along than they are. We may not (as Monte Davis noted in comments over there) have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey
by 2001, or even now, but we'd be on a lot clearer path to it, I think.
But that has never been a societal goal, even when we were pouring four percent of the federal budget (and doesn't that make the NASA fanboys drool) into the problem during Apollo. We were just trying to beat the Russkies to the moon, and after we did that, we got preoccupied, and public-choice economics took over, as it always does when things aren't important any more. And that's the way it's been ever since. But because of false myths promulgated during that era, it's been tough to raise the money privately as well.
It won't happen as fast as we'd like it to, nor will it happen as slowly as those who continue to cheer for government spaceflight expect, either. And most importantly, it will have trouble keeping up with the electronics singularity (though a lot of those advances will eventually accelerate space technology as well, and it will happen much sooner than most expect).
But I think that we are seeing real, measurable progress now, and I expect it to continue, and to continue to confound those who continue to cheer NASA five- and ten-year plans.
The interesting thing about the data Stross presents is that the capital costs in implementing those items falls drastically over time while general availability of capital in society has increased drastically. The first railroads -- the horse-drawn ones from minehead to navigable water -- which flourished between 1660-1830, required relatively little capital for the locomotive power, which after all was self-replicating, but the capital outlay for initial investment was very high, since horse-drawn freight railways couldn't have greater than 1% grades. So the civil engineering for them was substantially more impressive than for steam railways. So even though you had to buy the locomotives, using them lowered the upfront capital investment for a new line considerably. By the time you get to today's choice between cell and a new land-line system for a developing naation, it's a no-brainer. The problem with space is that the capital costs are much harder to drive down right now, and it's still hard to mobilize capital for the up-frot investment.
How would you even measure market penetration of space access though? The number of people that have gone to space? I doubt that will ever even approach 1/10th of the number of people who have flown in airplanes for a very, very long time. Most people just don't need to go to space, any more than they need to live on an oil rig 10 miles out to sea.
And it'll be a long, long time before space tourism reaches the mass appeal and mass price-point of Disney World. SpaceX is more promising than NASA, but nothing I've seen suggests that getting a human sized mass into orbit is going to be that kind of cheap. We'll need something other than chemical rockets to do that, and NO ONE is seriously looking at any alternatives right now.*
*Barring a startling breakthrough in fusion or C12-nanotube fabrication.
Most people just don't need to go to space, any more than they need to live on an oil rig 10 miles out to sea.
People don't "need" to go anywhere, Brock.
People *choose* to go places, rather than spend their entire lives right where they were born.
People don't need to live on oil rigs, but people choose to do so.
And it'll be a long, long time before space tourism reaches the mass appeal and mass price-point of Disney World.
Space travel already has mass appeal. Every survey shows that a great number of people want to go into space and are willing to spend considerably more than the cost of a trip to Disney World.
If you don't believe that, ask your family, friends, your doctor, the guy who sits next to you at work....
but nothing I've seen suggests that getting a human sized mass into orbit is going to be that kind of cheap. We'll need something other than chemical rockets to do that
Then nothing you've seen has included a simple propellant cost calculation. The amount of chemical propellant needed to get a human-sized mass into orbit costs less than a thousand dollars.
Most of SpaceX's cost is capital and labor, not propellant. Fusion and carbon nanotubes aren't necessary to reduce those costs. They won't even be helpful, unless they somehow reduce capital or labor costs. (In the near term, they would probably increase capital costs, because bleeding-edge technology tends to be expensive.)
The question is, after the electronics singularity will anyone care whether they are in space or not? Viable alternatives that come to mind:
1. Robots go to moon, Mars, comets, whatever. Telepresence allows operators to mine (or they do it autonomously). Telepresence could allow "tourism" in VR with full freedom of movement, etc.
2. In a world with immersive, holodeck type entertainment, we can invent worlds more fun and interesting than the ones we can travel to.
Space travel is *hard*, which makes it expensive. The energy outlays are such that the cost/benefit isn't obvious, and the obviousness decreases with each passing day. Until we have a real breakthrough in power generation (which we may have), virtualizing space travel is practically inevitable.
1. I'll see your telepresence robots and raise you speed-of-light delays.
2. Somehow reality always manages to come up with things that are niftier than we imagine.
I've been looking at pictures and watching videos for a long time. The pix and vids have gotten much better, but I still want to GO, even more than I did when I was a kid in the sixties.
I second Vince's comment. And add that "telepresence" won't let me feel Lunar gravity.
Telepresence could allow "tourism" in VR with full freedom of movement, etc.
We've have "telepresence" for decades.
The Travel Channel does not make people not want to travel. Quite the opposite.
In a world with immersive, holodeck type entertainment, we can invent worlds more fun and interesting than the ones we can travel to.
Yes, and cybersex will be better than real sex, and watching the Food Channel is better than going to a restaurant...
:-)
Jim hit it right on the head. The first horse drawn railroads took massive capital, but what a bonus when they paid off. The steam engine made a huge improvement in efficiency. Shipping goods was profitable and the idea flourished; eventually evolving into the modern semi tractor, the super freighter and their ever improving goods delivery systems.
All driven by product.
Space needs a product.
Sorry gents, I don't think joyrides will fit the bill.
I think freight and commerce are the best bet to drive the price into the "normal" range for us mortals.
We need a gold rush...
I disagree. Joyrides would be high margin. I think that'll be needed before lower margin, higher reliability "freight" makes sense. And currently, there's few commercial applications in space. We need a gold rush? Sure, but we need "gold" first. I just don't see it at present. At least, joyrides make some economic sense.
BenJCarter wrote: I think freight and commerce are the best bet to drive the price into the "normal" range for us mortals.
Freight and commerce to where? Without a presence elsewhere to obtain freight, there will be no freight for space. The costs of lifting freight into space, just to deliver back to earth, are not cost effective. Unless of course, you as a consume are willing to pay exorbitant prices for space delivery....the same exorbitant costs that tourism will generate. Tourism is the way to go, simply because once the excitement wears off for the rich, the costs will lower, and there will be other opportunities as well....space hotels anyone? And a hotel in space will need, guess what? Freight and commerce shipments.
None of you are going into space. The Singularity will forever be the Rapture for nerds. You're all going to die sometime this century, in a world with faster computers, but one which is fundamentally the same as the one you live in today. Sorry, but Kurzweil is going to meet the same pathetic end as every prophet of the End Times that came before him. And I will laugh.
Actually, there's lots of "gold" out there waiting to be mined. Sunlight, minerals and gasses. All we need is the initial capital to start mining, and the freight trains will be built. We won't have to depend exclusively on rockets, either. Check out www.jpaerospace.com. It may not happen in our lifetimes, but I sure hope so. I want to visit Dark Sky Station. I'd love a "joyride".
I guess my point is, a combination of both approaches, each driving and encouraging the other.
Sorry gents, I don't think joyrides will fit the bill.
I think freight and commerce are the best bet to drive the price into the "normal" range for us mortals.
I guess you don't think aviation will amount to anything, either, since "joyrides" sustained it for the first 10 years.
Or automobiles.
And certainly not microcomputers. I guess COBOL is the best bet to drive the price into the "normal" range for us mortals? Not that any mortal would want a computer on his desk, of course...
As an aside, the derogatory use of the term "joyride" has always reminded me of Ebenezer Scrooge. I feel sorry for you if there's no place for joy in your life.