Technological Stagnation

[RAMA]

We are talking bout technology.
The most important criteria for judging it are 'does it work?' and 'what can it do?'. NOT 'how flashy it is?' or 'how many quantum mechanical tricks does a device incorporates?':

If incremental advances will get us cheaply to LEO, then, at that point, these advances will transmute into a technological revolution.
If whatever newly discovered physical principle has little application in the technological field, then this principle does NOT constitute a technological revolution.

As for incremental technological advances - I merely pointed out how only slow, snail-paced advancements (nothing revolutionary) have been taking place in transportation since the seventies. This remains the case, regardless of whether some like this fact or not.

This is true really, transportation lags behind on an everday level..though there is a lot of research behind the scenes. Basically it seems as if our normal mode of transport is so ingrained there has been no need for a quantum leap from concept to commercial use. There is in fact some good development with flying cars (but I don't think these will ever be very useful). Also with efficient cars and robot vehicles; hyperloop is bringing an old tech that never matured back out with a potential to revolutionize med-range travel; Virgin Galactic is looking to bypass SST altogether and go straight to spaceplane commercial flights; space travel development is busier than it's ever been with multiple countries developing heavy lift rockets, as well as commercial companies easing into the new space race. The revolution there is in making it common and therefore cheaper.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/18/vi...-replace-the-concorde-for-terrestrial-travel/

 

[publiusr]

Dream chaser damaged--so they will be held back until repairs
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33155.msg1112928

But...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/blue-origins-suborbital-reusable.html

 

[GalaxyX]

I'd be happy with Phasers.

Flying Cars and Technology to make the blind see would both be kick ass second choices.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

...Technology to make the blind see ...

The company I work for is working on that one.

 

[GalaxyX]

...Technology to make the blind see ...

The company I work for is working on that one.

Interesting.

The technology you're working with seems to be made to stimulate leftover retinal cells.


I've seen two other variations. One which is similar to the one you showed me, except that an entire artificial retina is placed and connected to the optic nerve directly.

The other one is where they hook up electrodes directly to the visual cortex, and a camera/computer combination translates the data from the camera to impulses that stimulate the brain to "see" patterns.

What's your take on these technologies compared to the one you're working with?

I'm wondering if the day will come when they can grow new eyeballs for people and do a successful transplant "Minority Report" style.


I would gladly give up the dream to own a phaser if it meant that a successful technology to give the blind their eyesight back were possible.

 

[JarodRussell]

I'd be happy with Phasers.

Flying Cars and Technology to make the blind see would both be kick ass second choices.

Why is a weapon your first choice?

 

[RAMA]

I'd be happy with Phasers.

Flying Cars and Technology to make the blind see would both be kick ass second choices.

Do a google search, while hand lasers are out of the question in the next few decades, the tech is proliferating around the world. Germany, Russia, CHina, US all have battlefield lasers in heavy development.

http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/07/german-military-laser-destroys-targets-over-1km-away/

RAMA

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And in a very real sense, flying cars would also be weapons. Much more than non-flying cars could ever be!

 

[Lindley]

And in a very real sense, flying cars would also be weapons. Much more than non-flying cars could ever be!

In their ability to reach a target, possibly.

In the amount of explosives they would be capable of carrying were the driver so inclined, probably not.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Wasn't talking about explosives, as such. Just the extreme danger of having a flying car coming right for your house or your own self. Think about it - at any time, a car could come dropping out of the sky and land on you. If that's not a weapon, what is?

 

[Lindley]

^ Wasn't talking about explosives, as such. Just the extreme danger of having a flying car coming right for your house or your own self. Think about it - at any time, a car could come dropping out of the sky and land on you. If that's not a weapon, what is?

If you're determined to crash a flying object into a person you don't need flying cars to do it.

If you're talking about accidents, then you don't really mean "weapon" as such. Threat, possibly.

 

[GalaxyX]

To answer the question "Why is a weapon my first choice"

Without getting into a huge gun control debate (what's even the point?), I have been a "weapons" fan for over a decade, owning several firearms, knives, and even a couple of cool toys, such as really powerful hand held lasers (I have a 2W flashlight sized blue laser, which will light matches and pop balloon immediately, and burn thru most plastics in seconds) and even a sonic cannon (will generate a sound up to 140db at adjustable frequencies and will scare the shit out of any backyard pest)

In short, I believe in self defence, and I believe in making it as intimidating as fuck, and at the same time as safe as possible.

Even if I load really soft rounds on my 12 gauge (like 7 1/2 birdshot let's say), a potential thief would probably not receive a lethal hit, but he'd sure fucking bleed like gushers and permanent scars might be left, and worse, he'd probably still come lunging at me or my family. The only way to "stop" him, is most likely to use more powerful shells that will likely "stop him" forever.

Firing my laser at him would be intimidating as hell (picture a bright blue beam being fired at your chest) but not likely to do anything. If he is armed and insists on coming towards me, only option is to fire at his eyes and permanently blind him. Not acceptable.

A perfect phaser as depicted in Star Trek, on the other hand, would be an excellent non lethal weapon. It would have the incredible intimidation factor of seeing a huge motherfuckin' energy beam being fired at you, capable of completely disabling the perp, with the added bonus that he is extremely unlikely to have suffered any permanent damage at all.

I'm not sure if that is ever going to be possible, but for what it represents, I think it's an amazingly cool technology that I'd love to have.

Flying Cars would be as safe as Helicopters and Planes are, once they get a viable technology mass produced, but I admit true "Delorean style" flying vehicles are not likely to appear in the next 40-50 years, except with very niche organizations (Police, airports, high end transportation?)

 

[publiusr]

Now the big thing today is distrubuted lift
http://www.metisdesign.com/multidisciplinary-systems/propulsion-systems.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=volocopter-multi-blade-chopper

 

[DarthTom]

A perfect phaser as depicted in Star Trek, on the other hand, would be an excellent non lethal weapon. It would have the incredible intimidation factor of seeing a huge motherfuckin' energy beam being fired at you, capable of completely disabling the perp, with the added bonus that he is extremely unlikely to have suffered any permanent damage at all.

Police have access to the next best thing - Tasers which essentially do the same as a phaser set on, "stun."

Flying Cars would be as safe as Helicopters and Planes are, once they get a viable technology mass produced, but I admit true "Delorean style" flying vehicles are not likely to appear in the next 40-50 years, except with very niche organizations (Police, airports, high end transportation?)

Boeing is supposidly working on anti-gravity technology for the US Defense Department. The flying car isn't happening until any such tech is not only declassified but also introduced comercially.

BTW to the original poster. If Boeing has actually tested anti-gravity technology successfully that would represent a qunatum leap in aviation technology. I wouldn't expect the defense dept however to declassify any such technology soon.

Boeing, the world's largest aircraft manufacturer says it is working on anti-gravity propulsion, which could revolutionize conventional aviation.
If the science underpinning the program can be made into reality, it will be the biggest thing to hit the aviation industry since the Wright Brothers.
"GRASP," or Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion, was only recently reported in Jane's Defence Weekly, but the U.S. military may have had the technology for years.
The National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), based in Nevada, say that mysterious U.S. military craft using this kind of technology have been skirting the skies since the 1980s.
And NIDS is now calling for the military to unveil its secrets for commercial benefit.
Although no-one yet drives cars or flies commercial planes made from radar-avoiding, stealth bomber material, over the years there have been spin-offs that have had business applications.

 

[JarodRussell]

Flying Cars would be as safe as Helicopters and Planes are, once they get a viable technology mass produced, but I admit true "Delorean style" flying vehicles are not likely to appear in the next 40-50 years, except with very niche organizations (Police, airports, high end transportation?)

If there were as many private helicopters and planes as there are cars, helicopters and planes would not be safe anymore. Even with fancy antigravity technology. You simply can't have flying things in city streets. If things go wrong, you have cars crashing into the 50th floor of a building, or dropping straight on the ground on people from 200 meters.

Air traffic works the way it does because it is dominantly a public transport that takes place mostly outside the cities.

 

[DarthTom]

If there were as many private helicopters and planes as there are cars, helicopters and planes would not be safe anymore. Even with fancy antigravity technology. You simply can't have flying things in city streets. If things go wrong, you have cars crashing into the 50th floor of a building, or dropping straight on the ground on people from 200 meters.

The FAA will obviously have to regulate such technology and autopilot tech would obviously have to guide any such devices for the most part. Commercial airplanes can take off and land today without the aide of the pilot In fact they believe the Korean Airlines accident that occured a few months back at SF International airport was because the pilot turned off the auto navigation.

It's worth noting that the FAA estimates there will be 30,000 + private drones whizzing over our heads at any given time by 2020 which is just 6 years from now.

Business Insider

 

[JarodRussell]

If there were as many private helicopters and planes as there are cars, helicopters and planes would not be safe anymore. Even with fancy antigravity technology. You simply can't have flying things in city streets. If things go wrong, you have cars crashing into the 50th floor of a building, or dropping straight on the ground on people from 200 meters.

The FAA will obviously have to regulate such technology and autopilot tech would obviously have to guide any such devices for the most part. Commercial airplanes can take off and land today without the aide of the pilot In fact they believe the Korean Airlines accident that occured a few months back at SF International airport was because the pilot turned off the auto navigation.

It's worth noting that the FAA estimates there will be 30,000 + private drones whizzing over our heads at any given time by 2020 which is just 6 years from now.

Business Insider

The thought of having modern city street traffic in the sky is still just insane. It will not work. Full autopilot navigation in city street traffic will not even work for cars on the ground.

30,000 drones over the whole US? How about 30,000 drones just over downtown Manhattan? On a Sunday.

 

[FPAlpha]

It's just a matter of available infrastructure although with absolute gigantic need for investment and security.

 

[Lindley]

If there were as many private helicopters and planes as there are cars, helicopters and planes would not be safe anymore. Even with fancy antigravity technology. You simply can't have flying things in city streets. If things go wrong, you have cars crashing into the 50th floor of a building, or dropping straight on the ground on people from 200 meters.

I don't think we're anywhere near having things flying around inside urban canyons.

Air traffic works the way it does because it is dominantly a public transport that takes place mostly outside the cities.

Outside the cities, yes. Dominantly a public transport? That depends on how you define it. In terms of person-miles flown, sure. In terms of pure number of aircraft, maybe not. There are a *lot* of private planes up there. Still nowhere near as many as there are cars on the ground, but they tend to outnumber the commercial aircraft in many areas on a nice day. (In the weather, things change a bit.)

 

[GalaxyX]

Police have access to the next best thing - Tasers which essentially do the same as a phaser set on, "stun."

A phaser is guaranteed to stun a person, and has different stun settings. Usually a stunned person will stay down for a few mins at least. Also you can spray phaser a whole crowd and stun them all if necessary. That would be an awesome defense strategy if, let’s say, a group of 8 thugs was ganging up on you.

IMO though, the best part of it is the fact that you might be able to stop people from ganging up on you simply by firing a warning shot in their direction (I’m sure people who are not hopped up on drugs would definitely be intimidated by a motherfuckin’ beam of light being fired in their direction)

A taser has to be aimed properly, you only get to shoot it at one person at a time, it has no intimidation value at all, since it’s just a couple of wires with dart probes, and thick clothing is likely to completely negate the effects of it. Also if a person is high on some crazy shit, it’s not likely to take them down at all.

Boeing is supposidly working on anti-gravity technology for the US Defense Department. The flying car isn't happening until any such tech is not only declassified but also introduced comercially.

That’s pretty cool. Working anti-gravity technology is the key to make flying personal vehicles commercially viable.

If there were as many private helicopters and planes as there are cars, helicopters and planes would not be safe anymore. Even with fancy antigravity technology. You simply can't have flying things in city streets. If things go wrong, you have cars crashing into the 50th floor of a building, or dropping straight on the ground on people from 200 meters.

I don’t disagree. It will be a tough thing to setup safety wise, even if the technology is possible.