Sid Meier Interview

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin
It is if they go parallel and if the researchers doing the parallel are somehow on the same level of success.

If something has been discovered long before, it gives no advantage to rediscover it, or do you think Chinese are inventing a completely new way of spacecraft?

Ways of approach are not infinite, and, if one takes the same way that has already been walked and walks it again without having 'the map', it actually gives nothing or very little to the overall advancement.

Many countries use the method I'm talking about (two competing projects which are not allowed to talk to one another at least initially) when they are trying to develop advanced technologies very quickly and efficiently (eg military technologies). This was done in the U.S. and the Soviet Union (and most of the other major players) for instance in WW2 with very good results.

Sometimes both projects were run to completion, and other times one of the projects was shut down in order to pour its resources into its more successful cousin. Sometimes one group would make a breakthrough (like a supercharger for high altitude aircraft) and the other group would be given the technology because it changed the basic equation so much. Sure there was a fair amount of "reinventing the wheel" but there was also a good deal of vigor that challenged previously accepted but untested notions about how things should be done. The fact that a lame research group could be shut down quickly in favor of its more successful competitor kept people more honest and motivated, and even groups whose overall concept proved unsuccessful were able to contribute by designing subsystems which were superior to their competitors or concepts that would be more fully explored on later projects.

[binTravkin]

As I said, you completely miss the difference between 'developing' something or 'redeveloping' it.

Your statement above is only true on the condition that the concept or technology is actually being invented, it's something new.
But if it's something half of the world has known for 50 years, there's nothing to 'develop'.
Technologies can be bought or at least retro-engineered and then the advance would go further on the current basis.

If one now gave chinese scientists all the technological information available on spacecraft by this time, they'd start a new tech race leading to new developments not something we've seen before, and that would drive the overall advancement forward, don't you think?!


And I want stealth bombers/fighters in SMAC2 - a 'cloaked' un-interceptable aircraft.

[Darkstar]

China has everything that the Russians and Americans know. If you haven't been paying attention, American rocket defense contractors have been transfering the latest American rocketry and space technologies to them for the past 2 decades. And when Clinton was in office, he literally sold the latest and greatest tech to the Chinese Government in exchange for contributions to his political campaign and future commitment to his presidential library (PL). Indeed, half the money for his PL has been directly traced back to the Chinese Government.

The Russians have been trading and selling the Chinese their rocket and space technologies for a little past 3 decades. That includes direct sales of the hardware. Indeed, the Chinese space program is basically Russian tech, with some American avionics and advanced sub-systems.

You want to find actual advancement of basic rocketry, you have to look at the wantabe commercial ventures, such as Scaled Composites, SpaceX, and their competitors. They are the ones bringing forth new technologies and techniques.

That isn't to say that advances in probe drive systems or satelitte technology isn't being driven forward. But the Big 3 are all using old technology to loft payloads up. But both Russia and China are using 40 year old technology (Soyez) in their newest space launchers, and NASA is planning on using its 30 year old technology (Shuttle) in its newest launchers. This is the equivalent of using the Wright 1912 airplanes in WW2 for the Americans, and everyone else using the original Wright flyer. It works, but there are probably a lot better/efficent ways to do it.

Here's to Burt Ruton and all the other new thinkers out there. They'll be the ones that find us better ways up to orbit. But they cannot afford to go out and do the basic science that Cassini is doing, or that Galelio did, for instance. So this means that for a long time to come, government funded space efforts will be needed as well.

[Hydro]

For me the apathy and outright hostility to ‘wasting’ money on pure science and/or space exploration (or efforts that don’t have immediate and obvious technological benefits) was highlighted when I had an in depth discussion with a close family member who is technically savvy, socially astute, and ‘tuned in’. I expected our chat to be interactive and revolve around technology, future applications, etc. Instead he had a number of very good ‘why are we wasting all this money’ arguments, and then proceeded to list a series of Earth-based issues that demand attention. Basically what he highlighted was a cost benefit analysis as applied to space exploration. He rightly pointed out that the International Space Station has been a white elephant of the first order, and in his opinion the best thing we could do is line it with shaped charge to ensure it breaks apart into small pieces so that it completely burns up upon re-entry to the atmosphere. This showed a huge philosophical difference that scientific and exploration-friendly folks I usually associate with. I would venture to guess that most humans don’t care, are tuned out, or are outright hostile to the concept of space exploration and the costs involved. A family friend told me that God doesn’t want us in space, and that we should do to Earth whatever we like since God will remake it when the time is right. That ended the discussion: What in the world to you say to that?

binTravkin – I second Darkstar (with reservations). China is launching 1960s-era vehicles, and Russia has saved the International Space Station’s by not scrapping its 1970s-era launch vehicles. The US has its 1970s-era soon-to-be-scrapped Shuttle with nothing in the hopper to replace it. The EU had had a few heroic unmanned vehicles, but hasn’t put the resources toward anything remotely looking like a manned space program. Japan’s space program hasn’t (literally) gotten off the ground. Unmanned and especially manned space exploration takes enormous resources, and that requires a certain economy of scale – and political will. The political class apparently sees little value in placing their political capital with a venture that doesn’t have a constituency or an immediate payback (besides pork). Space exploration expanded to new heights during the cold war, but collapsed and then went into paralysis when the political necessity evaporated. There are few other likely candidates that might step up to the plate. Perhaps Uganda will take the lead? Or maybe North Korea? China might, but I suspect their efforts are driven by nationalistic fervor rather than an earnest desire in exploration (plus China is still very poor and has many other problems that demand resources, even if it is developing quickly). But, perhaps you’re seeing something I don’t.

I’ll have to partially disagree with you on the free flow of information. As Darkstar mentioned, NASA and the EU are rather free with their scientific data. In general it is public information and free to all, and it is certainly free to those in the wide-ranging consortium that participates in most pure science ventures these days. For ‘secrets’ I think you’re referring to hardware, such as rocketry, electronics, software, etc, and there is good reason for not giving away all these data. After all, these technologies have other applications - think intercontinental ballistic missiles and nifty military hardware used to kill people. I’m sure that Iran and North Korea (and China, for that matter) would be very pleased to get all the data they could. These data can also be used to commercial advantage by nominal friends that could turn all that expensive R&D against the entity that invested in it. After all, lunch costs less if you can take it from someone else. Think of national technological secrets of it at a patent – it gives the inventor ‘rights’ to it for a while, but there is a limited shelf life. And, once the sandwich is stale you’re much more likely to give it away or sell it on the cheap – hence the give-away of old space tech to China by the west.

Darkstar – I think you’re on the mark, but we’ll have to part ways on thinking private enterprise will do much to commercialize space in the near future. Simply put, there’s no immediate payout unless a government put a big, fat purse out there to defray costs. Space exploration is very expensive – even if you assume wild new advances that make old-line thinking obsolete. A few ultra rich philanthropists may dabble with a few tens of millions, but that isn’t much more than a drop in a bucket for a project like going to Mars.

[Kataphraktoi]

A family friend told me that God doesn’t want us in space, and that we should do to Earth whatever we like since God will remake it when the time is right. That ended the discussion: What in the world to you say to that?

you ask a christian such as me to give you counter arguments.

first of all,that rediculous statement has no basis. nowhere does the bible say that.

2nd we have a mandate to colonize the earth and devolop it as best we can.

third, we have a responsibility to take care of earth as much as possible. how we take care of things while not with god determines what we get when we are. its a test,and if you cant be trusted with earth how could you be trusted with heaven is the idea.

without seeing his exact statement,i couldnt go further at the moment.thats all off the top of my head

[Darkstar]

Hydro, the sheer amount of technology and medical advances that come out of all human space flight in the long term more then makes up for the cost of it in the short term.

Second, by studying the other worlds in our solar system, we truly do learn a lot about how things work here on Earth. That helps with things like predicting the weather more accurately, predicting earth quakes, etc etc etc.

That's just off the top of my head. If people want to take care of this world, we need to go to space. If we want to understand what our universe is, we need to go out among it and study it. So much of it cannot be properly studied from down here at the bottom of the ocean of our atmosphere.

As for spurring on the growth of commercial space... The X-Prize was not a government prise. It was a private prize purse. Look at all the commercial and private ventures that spurred!

Now, consider that the owner of Space Habitats (my notes show the company name is now Bigelow Aerospace) has put up his own $50 Million prize purse for the first company that successfully launches a 4 man craft into Low Earth Orbit. (Look up "American Space Prize). Robert Bigelow (owner of Bigelow Aerospace, as well as a lot of non-aerospace businesses) wants to spur the development of commercial LEO vehicles to service his planned orbital facilities. Including, his orbital hotels, film studios, etc.

There is definately enough demand to support space tourist, and filming SF films "on-location" . RB is also intending to sell his inflatable habs to others, such as USAF, NASA, ESA, JAXA, and anyone else that has an interest in owning or renting their own orbital facilities.

It should also be noted that Burt Rutan has stated that his next project is to take SpaceShipOne orbital, for similar reasons as Bigelow has put forward. So there are people out there that are very serious about making LOE at least economical for normal business. You know, tourists, research, spying on each other.

So, there is definately some serious hope out there. Add in NASA's intention to outsource to ScaledComposites, SpaceX, and the other launchers out there, and we may be seeing the first serious steps to stepping off our homeworld.