Why Warp Drive Will Not Be Coming Any Time Soon
Until the 19th century, explorers were the R&D leaders of the planet, finding new ways to exploit desired resources. The business developers of the day turned exploration into economic gain by funding better ships, with regular schedules. Ultimately, there was a consumer whose demand for goods supplied the reason for the huge expenses of energy and time by the few who were forging ahead.
It's easy to see that 20th century visionaries, extrapolating on the economic history of western civilization, would come to the conclusion that the next great exploratory realm was space, and that what was needed was a practical method of traveling the vast distances for such exploration in order for it to be viable.
Oh, there were some exceptions to those visions - the idea of generational ships, for example - but essentially, 17th and 18th century exploration mentality was driving the visions of the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. (Things started to wane a bit in the 70s with the rising concern of population growth and the realization that the environment and the star ship Earth were of more pressing concern. This also coincided with the decline of the Apollo program, but I digress.)
It is perhaps unfair to think that it could have been otherwise, and given the geopolitical climate of the 50s and 60s, it really is quite rational that superpower governments should think that a strategic foothold on Earth's closest off-shore island (the moon) would improve the security of everyone involved. So the contemporary kings of the day cannot be blamed for investing multi-billions of dollars into projects that could go nowhere.
Ah, they argued, but look at the spin-offs.
Yes - look at the spin-offs, the most significant of which, arguably, were solid-state microelectronics, and computers. You need both to get to the moon and back (you couldn't exactly have an on-board steam-punk version of Univac, now could you?).
Here's the thing. The 1960s space race triggered a new economy. If the old economy had chugged along at its steam-engine pace the way it had been going, then perhaps the focus on space exploration would not have diffused the way it did by the end of the war in Vietnam. But a new economy was spun, and everything - and I mean everything - changed.
The essential difference in the post-space program economy compared to the imperialistic, exploration-based economies of the 18th century and earlier are threefold: distributed research, competitive development, and commoditization of product.
"Distributed research" means the dissection of large-scale problems into specialized component research areas (for example, finding materials suitable for semiconductor electronics use, versus manufacturing techniques, or, say, fiber-optic communication). Taken further, distributed research also means information-sharing between research centers. Getting more people involved in research means more avenues of research exploration, with more potential practical outcomes.
"Competitive development" means several different developers all vying to produce profitable products.
"Commoditization of product" means producing sufficient quantities of a good to make penny-cheap, but widely dispersed.
Think of the plummeting price of disk drives with the concurrent rise in capacity during the 90s, and you can see the result of the DCC equation.
The funding for research into computing, the rise of university departments and degree programs in computing science as its own discipline, the capitalization of the business, and the competition, all lead to what is now a global consumer electronics market of somewhere around $680 billion, of which roughly $200 billion is personal computers. More than enough money to invest in other ventures, such as manned space exploration. So it's not like the money isn't there. It is; but not distributed where it can be utilized.
The investments in the kinds of research that would be required to make such exploration feasible and valuable just won't happen because there is no foreseeable benefit. Exploration, to be an economic driver, must provide economic, social, or cultural benefits somewhere down the line. Otherwise, there is no point in maintaining it. (I would wager the Vikings left Newfoundland simply because there was nothing to be gained by being there.)
Our ability to mimic the science-fiction visionaries like Gene Roddenberry and the writers of Star Trek (which has been credited for such things as voice-recognition/interaction computers, cell phones, and even fast-opening sliding doors) is limited by the economic outcome. We will stop at anything that likely does not feed, clothe, or entertain us.
It will be a long, long time before manned space exploration on the scale of Star Trek is something that will be realized, if it ever is, because the economics and the "DCC equation" will prevent it. Warp drive (or any FTL technology), even if the physics of the universe permit it, is not something that can be innovated into existence by one or two back-yard experimenters (although it is potentially something an extraterrestrial race could gift us). It is not something that could ever be made cheaply enough (comparatively -say, like liquid-fueled rockets) to become the jet-engine of manned space exploration. It requires real, exploration-based drivers to make it worthwhile.
In the absence of such drivers, there is no need for faster-than-light travel. Consequently, Earth will continue to be, for all intents, one tiny cell of life in a sterile, stellar soup.
Still, it's fun to imagine.
It's easy to see that 20th century visionaries, extrapolating on the economic history of western civilization, would come to the conclusion that the next great exploratory realm was space, and that what was needed was a practical method of traveling the vast distances for such exploration in order for it to be viable.
Oh, there were some exceptions to those visions - the idea of generational ships, for example - but essentially, 17th and 18th century exploration mentality was driving the visions of the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. (Things started to wane a bit in the 70s with the rising concern of population growth and the realization that the environment and the star ship Earth were of more pressing concern. This also coincided with the decline of the Apollo program, but I digress.)
It is perhaps unfair to think that it could have been otherwise, and given the geopolitical climate of the 50s and 60s, it really is quite rational that superpower governments should think that a strategic foothold on Earth's closest off-shore island (the moon) would improve the security of everyone involved. So the contemporary kings of the day cannot be blamed for investing multi-billions of dollars into projects that could go nowhere.
Ah, they argued, but look at the spin-offs.
Yes - look at the spin-offs, the most significant of which, arguably, were solid-state microelectronics, and computers. You need both to get to the moon and back (you couldn't exactly have an on-board steam-punk version of Univac, now could you?).
Here's the thing. The 1960s space race triggered a new economy. If the old economy had chugged along at its steam-engine pace the way it had been going, then perhaps the focus on space exploration would not have diffused the way it did by the end of the war in Vietnam. But a new economy was spun, and everything - and I mean everything - changed.
The essential difference in the post-space program economy compared to the imperialistic, exploration-based economies of the 18th century and earlier are threefold: distributed research, competitive development, and commoditization of product.
"Distributed research" means the dissection of large-scale problems into specialized component research areas (for example, finding materials suitable for semiconductor electronics use, versus manufacturing techniques, or, say, fiber-optic communication). Taken further, distributed research also means information-sharing between research centers. Getting more people involved in research means more avenues of research exploration, with more potential practical outcomes.
"Competitive development" means several different developers all vying to produce profitable products.
"Commoditization of product" means producing sufficient quantities of a good to make penny-cheap, but widely dispersed.
Think of the plummeting price of disk drives with the concurrent rise in capacity during the 90s, and you can see the result of the DCC equation.
The funding for research into computing, the rise of university departments and degree programs in computing science as its own discipline, the capitalization of the business, and the competition, all lead to what is now a global consumer electronics market of somewhere around $680 billion, of which roughly $200 billion is personal computers. More than enough money to invest in other ventures, such as manned space exploration. So it's not like the money isn't there. It is; but not distributed where it can be utilized.
The investments in the kinds of research that would be required to make such exploration feasible and valuable just won't happen because there is no foreseeable benefit. Exploration, to be an economic driver, must provide economic, social, or cultural benefits somewhere down the line. Otherwise, there is no point in maintaining it. (I would wager the Vikings left Newfoundland simply because there was nothing to be gained by being there.)
Our ability to mimic the science-fiction visionaries like Gene Roddenberry and the writers of Star Trek (which has been credited for such things as voice-recognition/interaction computers, cell phones, and even fast-opening sliding doors) is limited by the economic outcome. We will stop at anything that likely does not feed, clothe, or entertain us.
It will be a long, long time before manned space exploration on the scale of Star Trek is something that will be realized, if it ever is, because the economics and the "DCC equation" will prevent it. Warp drive (or any FTL technology), even if the physics of the universe permit it, is not something that can be innovated into existence by one or two back-yard experimenters (although it is potentially something an extraterrestrial race could gift us). It is not something that could ever be made cheaply enough (comparatively -say, like liquid-fueled rockets) to become the jet-engine of manned space exploration. It requires real, exploration-based drivers to make it worthwhile.
In the absence of such drivers, there is no need for faster-than-light travel. Consequently, Earth will continue to be, for all intents, one tiny cell of life in a sterile, stellar soup.
Still, it's fun to imagine.
Comments
Post a Comment